Currently in line to see Bernie Sanders deliver a speech in New Orleans. Will report back.

Clinton is in trouble

@Thucy -- I seriously hope the Democrats pull their collective heads out of their asses and start putting their support behind good old Bernie. He is a Liberal wet dream!

You better hope not, he'll steal the biggest generation's vote and then bring out all those (like Thucy) who would otherwise refuse to vote or not be able to - people would make sure they get to the polls for Bernie. He would take the minority votes, he would take the female demographic, he would take everyone with half a head about them. Like you said, he's a liberal wet dream, not the middle-right Democrat we have now.

He said we need to divest from fossil fuels completely with the Lake Pontarchtrain levee literally in the window across from him. Excellent.

Interesting then that Sanders is becoming sensationally popular in a similar vein to Jeremy Corbyn's rise in the Labour leadership election in the UK.

My (admittedly not thoroughly thought through) read on Bernie Sanders is that he's a bit like the Ron Paul of the left. Way out there, hugely popular among his constituents......loooooong way to go to break out of that constituency.

"He said we need to divest from fossil fuels completely"

Wait -- meaning what, exactly?

Plastics included?

Meaning stop digging up carbon from underground and burning it

Eh no need for a socialist
we will turn into a 1 class givernment

Anyway, I was sold on voting for him when the word oligarchy came out of his mouth. Like I've said before: don't vote - unless there's someone worth voting for

Hes a socialist
America needs Democracy not Socialism
Look at Obama
basically a socialist

Scott Walker and John Kaisach are one of the best governors in office today
Both turned their states into prosperous economies and job creation states

Thucy
Dont listen to speeches, half of the crap they are saying is exageration and the other is lies
Look at the facts

"Anyway, I was sold on voting for him when the word oligarchy came out of his mouth. Like I've said before: don't vote - unless there's someone worth voting for"

I'm pretty sure you've said don't vote period, because the whole idea that we have a choice or a system is a sham. It's entertaining, therefore, that you just meant that you didn't like the candidates. When he loses, I'm sure you'll go back to interpreting your compatriots' rejection of his values as their not having a real choice, and being manipulated.

"Meaning stop digging up carbon from underground and burning it"

Please, please, please let this guy win the Democratic nomination. Man, never have I been so tempted to donate money to a Democrat.

He's a democratic socialist, to be more accurate. You know, the one that likes democracy. Also, what America doesn't need (more than socialism of any form) is echo chamber repetition decrying everything unfamiliar to them. Sanders doesn't lie, but it would be something of a lie if I didn't admit he exaggerates on things. Clinton lies. Those are why Clinton's net favorability is dropping while Sanders's is increasing with his notoriety.

"He's a democratic socialist, to be more accurate. You know, the one that likes democracy. "
-That's not necessarily true. Speaking as an independent and a historian I can tell you that your statement is somewhat incorrect. It is different from Marxist-Leninist (Soviet Models), but a true Democratic Socialist still seeks to transition from a Capitalist based economy to a Socialist based economy. The term "Social Democrat" simply means one willing to work through democracy to build a socialist based economy. Some may even view the world through historical materialism. So does a Social Democrat like democracy? Well, they are willing to work within the system. I don't know if that is the same thing as "liking" it.

I don't know who I am going to vote for. I'll have to see who the two main candidates are following the primaries, but I thought I should clear this point up.

Well, fair, but it is at least better than assuming socialism is a political concept when it is necessarily an economic one, and therefore is not necessarily in opposition to democracy.

Nah, you can go back and read what I said if you want. I said a candidate should earn your vote, and if everytbing available is just more oligarchy, you are endorsing that when you vote for "the lesser of two evils."

oh and, hey semck, go fuck yourself

Dear semck, you are going to die surrounded by a dying world that you made with a shit ton of stuff you don't need and maybe, just maybe, you will manage to think to yourself "at least I'm going to Heaven". If human civilization survives this millennium, your ilk will be a long forgotten footnote, and good riddance. if the only thing that will convince you climate change is real is dying at its hand, so be it. Happy trails

Thucy,

You're right. I see that you were using "rigged" in an unusual sense (and I had either missed or forgotten the post where you explained this). I think you were using the word dishonestly. In what sense is the election "rigged" if anybody like Bernie Sanders can just throw his hat into the ring, gets enough coverage for people like you to decide to support him, and gets some traction in the polls? I assume that when he loses, you are going to find some way to blame "the system" and refuse to believe that all the people who voted for him just actually disagree with you? That everybody would agree with you if only they could be allowed to hear your honeyed drops of wisdom?

As for your last post -- thank you for demonstrating how to speak to others when you believe we're all one. (I will pause to point out that I never denied the reality of climate change. Inferring that from my disagreement with you is just more of your breathtaking presumption).

Sanders may have better principles than Clinton, but I trust Clinton to handle the position better than any other candidate of either party. She's professional and knows what she's signing up for. As much as I would hate to see Clinton v. Bush again, those are some of the only candidates I can take seriously. I really want to vote Republican, but I'm not sure there will be a good enough candidate. If all else fails Clinton has my vote. Though I like Kasich. Maybe Perry or Rubio or Walker, and possibly Paul if he does everything right from here on out. Trump, Carson, and Cruz are three of the worst candidates I've seen. I'd rather put John Edwards in the oval office.

Back to topic: Rubio may have presented the best challenge to Hillary, though his Immigration stance has taken him out of the running. The Republican Party is correct to let trump run blocker for Bush. It almost ensures a Bush candidacy where Florida and the Latino vote feature prominently and a probable Republican victory.

Corollary: While fun, using Comedy Central or Fox News as your primary world-information media is akin to sticking your head up your own rear and exlaming loudly about what you see. Find less tainted sources and better varied sources.

@Thucy

But there's often a candidate good enough, at least in general elections. I mean, I'm not going to agree 100% with someone unless I run myself--and even then I might have some qualms. I agree that we shouldn't vote for the lesser-of-two-evils, but we should vote for the candidate who's good enough over the candidate who's bad.

@Zach

1. Obama's not a socialist. This is coming from probably one of the most capitalistic people on the site, by the way. I used to say crap like that, too, but then I learned that socialism was actually a political/economic ideology and not just a pejorative used for anyone further left than me on economic issues.
2. You position it as socialism vs. democracy. What does Bernie Sanders, the only remotely socialist guy in the race, call himself? A *democratic* socialist. There's a BIG difference between a democratic socialist and a communist.

@AngrySeas

I don't think Rubio has taken himself out of the running by having a more sensible immigration policy than some of the others. Sure, he might have lost some conservative street cred, but he certainly has more of that than the last two nominees did. He's electable enough to take a chunk of establishment support away from the weak Bush, and conservative enough on other issues to pull some of that crowd away from Walker/Cruz/Huckabee.

"But here's the relevant question: would Donald Trump be good at Diplomacy?"

This is THE question for all the candidates. I think he'd be pretty good. Art of the Deal and whatnot. He can negotiate. Rand would probably try to ally with all the others, and not attack them unless constitutionally allowed. Lincoln Chafee would play it in metric...somehow.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/theres-something-about-bernie/399740/
"Antiestablishment passion, left and right, is in the air. People are angry all over, fed up with a system that isn’t working, an elite that doesn’t listen, a politics perpetually conducted within a narrow, unrepresentative band of acceptable opinion."

I have to say, Bernie Sanders has pleasantly surprised me this running so far. Clinton has been sleazy, and Rubio is going to be under a lot of pressure by his party.

As far as immigration goes: Rubio is going to draw in a HUGE number of votes from the latino community, which will help the Right all the more. Definitely not out of the running.

I checked out all the Democrat nominee's websites today, and I must say that I liked Jim Webb. Doubt he will get past the primary... But I would definitely put him as my #1 in the D camp.