• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Official If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination thread.....

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat said:
Win meaning he gets greater than 50% of the vote. That’s great I’m excited!
Win meaning he gets more than anyone else and does some horse trading with #2 to win. I’m good with that provided it is not a retarded horse
Win meaning he got more votes than anyone else but it is not a plurality
Like:
Bernie gets 33%
#2 gets 31%
#3 gets 26%

I’m pretty worried.
Click to expand...
Well, that would be a disaster.
 
Moonbeam said:
To add to your confusion you might want to think about what the results of not doing the Sanders plan might mean for the world. I mean it would be a lot more practical, less expensive, and more realistic to just let the planet die, right. You just might have to ask yourself if you really understand what run away climate change will mean for humanity. His whole plan might look very different if you are dying of thirst or swept away by flood somewhere there has never been one before, etc.

And what do you bet the oil, gas, and nuclear people are doing with their money to support his plan?
Click to expand...
I’m fine with a modern nuclear plant. It’s the only carbon neutral means of providing the base load the the US, and industrialized nations, need. People are so freaking paranoid about old PWR class plants - there are newer designs that cannot melt down and use existing nuclear waste products as fuel. But instead, people run around screaming at the sky like chicken little's about the horrors of nuclear whilst carbon fuel sources continue to poison millions and heat our atmosphere. Brilliant - talk about emotion driven irrational fears! We are fucked if we cannot get past an issue as simple as providing base load as the foundation for a renewable oriented electric power infrastructure.
 
cirrrocco said:
How is it hypocritical?
What experience does Bloomberg have?? Raping/ Molesting and crushing women with legal disclosures.
compared to Bloomberg, Sanders has a whole life of positive contribution to society

Who are you supporting btw?
Click to expand...


Sorry guy, this is about a different conversation.
 
Moonbeam said:
How quickly we forget I'm either a troll or too old to have a coherent conversation with.

You are in the habit of making claims like I can't read or my hypocrisy is off the charts. Why not just lay out your case. Here you can show me what I said now and what I said elsewhere that you think is hypocritical and I would have something I could respond to. The last time I had to drag that out of you we discovered I shouldn't have been concerned about what somebody actually said because they said something you thought I should have read differently than what they actually said for reasons..... All I said there was that I had a concern about how, if the poster meant to say something else he shouldn't have used the example of unity that he did point to. So what is it this time?
Click to expand...

So you don’t remember what you posted from a day ago, now? Or now you suddenly remember? You are all over the place.
 
Last edited:
Ajay said:
I’m fine with a modern nuclear plant. It’s the only carbon neutral means of providing the base load the the US, and industrialized nations, need. People are so freaking paranoid about old PWR class plants - there are newer designs that cannot melt down and use existing nuclear waste products as fuel. But instead, people run around screaming at the sky like chicken little's about the horrors of nuclear whilst carbon fuel sources continue to poison millions and heat our atmosphere. Brilliant - talk about emotion driven irrational fears! We are fucked if we cannot get past an issue as simple as providing base load as the foundation for a renewable oriented electric power infrastructure.
Click to expand...
In some ways you answer your own question. The opposition to nuclear is a no go for both emotionally irrational and financial reasons. It's unpopularity and time for construction mitigate against it. Cost overruns and fear based political opposition, make it impossible for construction to get financing and the build time is significant. Solar, with all of it's inherent weaknesses compared to nuclear, may be resolved before the problems that nuclear face can be eliminated. You can argue, for example the fusion is better than fission, but when will we ever see it? A lesser solution becomes the only solution if the superior one can't happen in the time frame where it would be needed. It is also possible that people will change their minds. If enough people begin to see nuclear as the only avenue of success, perhaps the climate will change, punning by hapinstance.
 
Jaskalas said:
Sanders isn't going to get what he wants as President. But electing him would at least tell the country what WE want.
Click to expand...
Bully Pulpit and all that. A change from the constant brainwashing against socialism and how you are going to be dragged down to be the nobody you already feel yourself to be.
 
interesting op-ed with the nevada caucus coming up.

www.cnn.com

My Nevada caucus journey -- from supporting Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders | CNN

It might sound odd to support a libertarian like Paul and then go for Bernie just a decade later, but it's much easier than it seems, writes Edwin Lyngar
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

it's funny how attitudes can change when something finally affects you.

for me, my "come to jesus" moment was on universal healthcare when i was between jobs. uninsured, i had what later turned out to be a flare up from (undiagnosed at the time) crohn's disease that sent me to the ER. the bill was 15,000. most Americans can't handle an unexpected $400 expense, let alone something ~40x that magnitude. luckily, i ponied up for COBRA (it's retroactive!) and got the vast majority of that bill covered. but even if COBRA weren't available, i would have been able to pay that bill. and that is the crazy thing - most people wouldn't. it would have been financially crippling for me, but absolutely ruinous for most people YEARS after the fact.

so i think if Bernie can keep on message (and he's been consistent over...well, decades), i think he has a solid shot. it's pretty simple - he and his message inspire people. i admittedly haven't followed the primaries to say whether Warren or Buttigieg are any more exciting (Biden is decidedly standard/boring), but Bernie certainly can drum up support. And I think the right message from him could even reach some of the currently pro-trump crowd.
 
Moonbeam said:
In some ways you answer your own question. The opposition to nuclear is a no go for both emotionally irrational and financial reasons. It's unpopularity and time for construction mitigate against it. Cost overruns and fear based political opposition, make it impossible for construction to get financing and the build time is significant. Solar, with all of it's inherent weaknesses compared to nuclear, may be resolved before the problems that nuclear face can be eliminated. You can argue, for example the fusion is better than fission, but when will we ever see it? A lesser solution becomes the only solution if the superior one can't happen in the time frame where it would be needed. It is also possible that people will change their minds. If enough people begin to see nuclear as the only avenue of success, perhaps the climate will change, punning by happenstance.
Click to expand...
Good points. But, I'm am not at all sure that the problems with Solar (power storage) can be solved in any reasonable time frame (relative to the needs of moving to clean energy in transportation and power production). The first obstacle to next gen nuclear is...the NRC. So focused over many years on water based heat transmission media, they simply seem unable to adjust to the new reactor technologies like MSR - slowing the whole deployment process to a near halt**. The newer plants also address the financial problems by using smaller, more modular reactor units that allow for faster building (and hence faster ROI) - minimizing debt risk. In any case, at least at present, there is much less anxiety over solar and solar power storage (though the best medium for storage thus far, lithium, has it's own environmental issues that some group will holler about at some point).

** Bill Gates TerraPower company tried to get around this by building a plant in China - but Trump blocked that.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
But no question why a hosp bill would be $15,000. Or why my minor surgery bill was $27,000 for the room and 2 nurses for 2 hours.
Click to expand...

couldn't have anything to do with a combination of profit seeking, uninsured patients, and inability to negotiate with the force of a government, could it?

Having worked for a medical company, I've literally seen what many European counties pay vs the US for literally the same product. it's a lot less.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
But no question why a hosp bill would be $15,000. Or why my minor surgery bill was $27,000 for the room and 2 nurses for 2 hours.
Click to expand...
Fenixgoon said:
couldn't have anything to do with a combination of profit seeking, uninsured patients, and inability to negotiate with the force of a government, could it?

Having worked for a medical company, I've literally seen what many European counties pay vs the US for literally the same product. it's a lot less.
Click to expand...

A Royal Baby costs less to birth than a typical American birth

www.economist.com

A typical American birth costs as much as delivering a royal baby

The average normal delivery in the United States costs over $10,000
www.economist.com www.economist.com

the price of delivering the new prince, who is fifth in line to the British throne, was probably slightly less than that of an average American baby. In 2015, the Lindo Wing charged £5,670 ($8,900) for 24 hours in a deluxe room and a non-Caesarean delivery. A survey in the same year by the International Federation of Health Plans found that the average fee for such a delivery in the United States was $10,808. That rises to roughly $30,000 after accounting for care given before and after a pregnancy, according to Truven Health Analytics. Insurers cover most of the cost, but parents are still left with an average bill of about $3,000. In many European countries, free maternity care is available.
Click to expand...
 
pcgeek11 said:
Right!

I'm going to vote for a socialist.
😛
Click to expand...
Well, socialism's been a bad word in America for decades, I think it's the taint of communism they associate it with. But if you think about it, it could/should just connote that government, the ethos of the electorate, should be that of serving the greater good. Capitalism is something very other in that it applauds the accumulation of capital, i.e. of power over other people. So, I say, let's make "socialism" a positive idea! I don't think Bernie's afraid of being called a socialist.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
But no question why a hosp bill would be $15,000. Or why my minor surgery bill was $27,000 for the room and 2 nurses for 2 hours.
Click to expand...

6 hours in ER is $12,000 for a quick scan to diagnose a bad kidney stone. The moment an American touches a hospital, they are bankrupt and financially ruined. Healthcare is very important. I just don't think enough Americans can grasp the concept of government acting as a larger, more effective insurance. Economic illiteracy has crippled our ability to rationalize large expenditures. I think Americans need a more direct mechanism such as Basic Income, before they understand and trust the concept for something "elective" like Healthcare.

Let us not forget the tantrum this nation threw over the ACA forcing people to "buy in". As if Health is optional in life. Americans see the cost, they lack the knowledge and or wisdom to see the benefits. They don't even realize the government option is really just a larger, more effective, insurance pool. Republicans are railing against better insurance.

We can do so much with what we have, and yet we do so little.

Sanders is an important symbolic victory to have, but a movement has already failed if it depends on one man. Helping the American people with economic security MUST be a ground swell of grass roots support. With a nation DEMANDING the Democrat Party step up and support our initiatives. The election after this one cannot be 1 Bernie Sanders and 19 others. We must all be Bernie Sanders. And we must do everything in our power to make that happen, for the hopes and aspirations of a better tomorrow.
 
Jaskalas said:
Sanders is an important symbolic victory to have, but a movement has already failed if it depends on one man. Helping the American people with economic security MUST be a ground swell of grass roots support. With a nation DEMANDING the Democrat Party step up and support our initiatives. The election after this one cannot be 1 Bernie Sanders and 19 others. We must all be Bernie Sanders. And we must do everything in our power to make that happen, for the hopes and aspirations of a better tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree with that (even if the language is a mite too flowery for my tastes!). Change requires a mass movement - hero-worshipping individuals or expecting one person to change everything is a recipe for massive disappointment at best (and something rather nasty at worst - cf Trump).

The personal fandom I see for Sanders bothers me a bit. It does seem to me that his Presidential runs have helped start a larger conversation/social shift, and that part of it is cheering, but the more it seems like a cult of personality the more pessimistic I feel.
 
Hmm, in the news this morning (CNN), Bernie and Bloomberg are the two rising in the polls. Everyone else is on decline. May you live in interesting times.
 
Ajay said:
Hmm, they teach an odd version of history in Europe. To stay close to home for you, consider the French revolution - try not to lose your head over it 😛
Click to expand...


Um, the "Velvet revolution"? The IT revolution?

There's the Industrial revolution, but I guess opinions can vary over to what extent you'd call that 'violent'.

Really, come to think of it, 'violence' itself is not a clearly defined word. If people die in large numbers because of the effect of man-made climate change, for example, would those be 'violent deaths'? Was Bhopal a crime of violence?

I've found people sometimes try to deny that lethally-bad driving is a 'violent crime', when it seems to me that being squashed under a lorry is a pretty violent event.

(This is one of my doubts about Stephen "Dr Pangloss" Pinker's thesis about the decline in violence...also about complaints about 'violent video games')
 
pmv said:
Um, the "Velvet revolution"? The IT revolution?

There's the Industrial revolution, but I guess opinions can vary over to what extent you'd call that 'violent'.

Really, come to think of it, 'violence' itself is not a clearly defined word. If people die in large numbers because of the effect of man-made climate change, for example, would those be 'violent deaths'? Was Bhopal a crime of violence?

I've found people sometimes try to deny that lethally-bad driving is a 'violent crime', when it seems to me that being squashed under a lorry is a pretty violent event.

(This is one of my doubts about Stephen "Dr Pangloss" Pinker's thesis about the decline in violence...also about complaints about 'violent video games')
Click to expand...
There is another form of revolution I would point to, a revolution in thinking and attitude, like going from the center of the universe to billions of galaxies, or gay rights, and any number of other social revolutions, each of them the result of realization that what had been an ego crutch wasn't really a sacred cow after all. There is also the matter of self realization and the death of self hatred within, the change is world view brought on by contact with the divine, the oneness of everything.
 
LurchFrinky said:
Haven't you heard? With congress relinquishing much of their power, the President is free to rule by Executive Order. Don't need any legislative skill for that.
And do you think he is going to veto Democratic-led bills that land on his desk? Do you think any will actually make it to his desk?
If a topic comes up that actually has bi-partisan support, do you think he will throw a tantrum because somebody says it makes him look bad?

Bernie Sanders will try and convince the public that his policies are good for them, and he will succeed for some of them. With the public behind him, he should be able to get something passed (if the Dems control the Senate), or at least move the needle for future elections. Simply undoing the stench of Trump will be a monumental task occupying most of his first term.
Click to expand...

I have stated numerous times here that I would crawl through a mile of broken glass to vote for Bernie over Trump if he is the nominee. The main thing is to get Autocrat Trump out and restore our checks and balances and our good standing in the world . Bernie will do that. He has more integrity in his pinkie compared to the whole of Trump. I will be fine with 4 yrs of gridlock if Bernie wins and the Senate remains GOP controlled. Obviously to get even a part of his agenda passed, Bernie would need a Democratic Senate. Key Senate races will be in places like Alabama, Iowa, Colorado, and Maine. It is reasonable to wonder whether having Sanders at the top of the ticket will hurt the Democrats' chances in those states.

For example - I don't see him doing well in the midwest because him wanting to ban fracking. Are people in those states going to want part of their state economy eliminated?. I'm just not seeing a path to him winning. And, I don't see Bernie as the charismatic leader that builds coalitions to sell democratic socialism to the masses. We are too divided with socioeconomic and cultural baggage. The country is split down these lines. This country isn't Japan or Sweden. Bernie has never played well with others or learned to compromise. That's why he has such a small record of accomplishment for his many decades in the House.

At this time, (that could change) I just don't think Bernie can beat Trump. I'm seeing that a majority of Americans are not going to vote to tear everything down and start over in a relatively good economy. There's a reason that Trump hasn't attacked Bernie yet. He's intentionally building up Bernie's campaign because Trump wants to run against Bernie. He'll paint Bernie as an extreme socialist that will tank your retirement funds and 401ks , and in his mind, he'll coast to victory. In Trump's world, truth is irrelevant. Image is everything. And Trump has the money to make that image stick. I see his followers are doing the same thing here and elsewhere. We are in the era of politics as reality show, and this is the big extravaganza. It’s not politics as usual, it’s media driven machine warfare. I just don’t think the other Democratic candidates have the resources (except Bloomberg). I don’t think small donor financing will work once we get to the general. Nothing will rally Trump voters more than the thought of a "socialist/communist" possibly replacing their cult leader and they will come out in droves. And many independents and swing voters will buy in to that narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top