Pack your car with like minded others - don't vote for him where many others will. Go to some rich area where he will have a hard time beating Clinton. The winner is NOT the one with the most supporters, but the one who wins in the most voting places. Spread the word. All you will need is proof of voting age and an Iowa residence. Visit your home if not too far away, especially if a Clinton area. Tell you mon, dad, etc. to go and vote for your future - not more of the Wall Street dominated one.
Hmm... This thread probably falls under our guidelines regarding the posting of propaganda - in this case political propaganda. Since this is the first time I've come across this kind of thing on sciforums, I'm going to let it go this time.
At present there is a difference of 2 tenths of a percent. My son, who is a hard supporter of Sanders, predicts many Dem's won't bother voting if Clinton is nominated.
Well that is what the right wingers are hoping for anyway. But I just don't see it. I haven't heard a single liberal make that assertion. Sanders certainly wouldn't endorse it. The internal and external enmity which exists within the Republican Party doesn't exist in the Democratic Party and we have seen that clearly displayed during the debates. The Democratic debates were downright civil in contrast to the Republican debates. So I think that is more wishful thinking on your part and on the part of many Republicans. I find it difficult to believe your son is a hard supporter of Sanders. Sanders and Clinton are not that that much different.
Thanks, but it was intended to make clear how the Iowa delegates are chosen as well as to help get college based kids to use their vote wisely with that understanding. Now that Iowa is nearly over (But it ain't over till its over) this thread should morph into a general discussion of how the US does not give equal importance to all votes. I think that "electrical college" process was necessary 100 years ago, but now direct voting for president via the internet is possible and desirable. A vote in a low population state may count like dozens when it comes to selection of members of Senate. I don't know, and perhaps we never will, but I am confident Bernie got more votes than Clinton did as in polls near college towns, the margin for Burnie was probably something like 10 to 1, but that does not get reflected in the delegates they gained. – They got no more than if Bernie had won by only a 1.1 to 1 margin. If we want a true democracy with all votes being equally important, we need direct internet voting - I'm no geek, but surely if I can pay bills and spend bitcoins by internet, the technology exist to vote for president by internet.
In their general goals - improved conditions for middle Americans, I agree, BUT there is a great difference in how quickly they want that change to occur. Clinton wants it over decades or at least recognizes that with the current evolutionary process of change it will take that long. Bernie wants a social revolution and recognizes that requires the mass of American to stand up and say "enough is enough" and become politically active – i. e. vote instead of more than half sit the elections out. Bernie is very popular with his supporters because they see their prospects as less attractive than their parents were when they graduated from college. They don't want to (and can not) wait for slow evolutionary change, especially as the current direction of change is exactly wrong - the extremely wealthy are growing wealther, in even relative wealth, compared to the masses. 1% now have more than the bottom half does, etc. Bernie and I may not live to see his "social revolution" but "Deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall over come, someday" (the wealthy PTB). We did it once against the injustice of segregation, we can do it again. It is not right that 62 people have more wealth than half the world's population. For more along these lines, see my old thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...ace-by-internet-direct-representation.108519/ A phased in plan for direct internet election of House of Representives memebers.
Record turnout at the caucuses yestereve Chaos in a gymnasium. Sanders won in our precinct, by just a few votes. And Clinton already had 15% of the delegates before a single caucus or vote was cast.(super delegates) So, Sanders will need 66% of the people's votes to compete-----------(unlikely?) And I will not vote for Clinton!
But then you are not a Democrat. So no one would expect you to, regardless of who the Democrat is. You are a so called conservative. You would be expected to vote with Republicans.
So you are a guy who hates government and doesn't want government ownership or involvement in virtually anything, but at the same time wants the government to own and control everything. No contradiction there...?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Libertarian socialism is another name for social anarchism. Your "libertarian socialism" isn't consistent with the beliefs of the Democratic Party or the principals of democratic socialism which Sanders claims to adhere to. So if you voted for Sanders as you claim, you voted for a candidate who is diametrically opposed to the beliefs you now claim to subscribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism If you did indeed vote for Sanders as you have claimed, what you did was what Republicans have been doing for years now. In the primary elections, you voted for the candidate in the opposing party (i.e. Democratic Party) which you thought would be the weakest candidate in a general election against a Republican candidate. It's a Republican strategy made popular by right wing entertainers like Limbaugh. Getting back to my point, because you are an extreme "conservative" you wouldn't vote for any Democrat in a general election no matter who that Democrat might be. Democrats, and especially Sanders, the guy you said you voted for in the Iowa caucus (i.e. primary), are diametrically opposed to your stated ideology.
You are making a common mistake of equating socialism with communism, which does have a foundation of government owners of the means of production. In socialist Scandinavia, government ownership of factories, shipping lines, lumber compainies etc is rare. Most "libertarian socialists" and Scandinavians prefer private ownership especially if via stocks that all can participate in their ownership; but they think it is society's duty to provide: (1) good health care for ALL, not just the well off as in the US; (2) good educational opportunity for ALL, not just those whose parents can afford a home in a richer neighborhood, which can afford to pay teachers well, buy books for the library, repair broken windows, etc. and not the poor schools in poor neighborhoods as is common in the US. I. e. a libertarian socialists sees education and medical care as a RIGHT, not a privilege of the wealthy. My two major operations required seven nights in the hospital for recuperation - Total cost to me was zero. Doctor and many drugs are free as are blood tests, expensive MRI and T99m body scans, etc. (In 7 years I have measured my PSA 50 times as I used my purchased ADT drug intermittenly - resuming use as PSA apporached 0.1ng/ml.) Some buses in Brazil have words I like, painted on their sides, which translate as: Transport - A citizen's right; The government's duty. Brazil's main problem is corrupt politicians - a tradition from 300+ years ago: but as in China now, that is changing - politicians are actually going to jail! I have not owned a car since I sold my cattle farm. It was a three hour drive from Sao Paulo*, and very cheap even for land there as badly run down /neglected. Its >100 hilly acres supported only ten scrawny cows with ribs clearly showing under their skin. They used all the energy the grass gave, just climbing up and down the hills. There was a spring high up on the land, so the first thing I did was plastic hose to several small stone water basins where they could drink without going back down to the small streams in the valleys between the hills. Then I plowed under the weeds, and seeded with good seed (at cost of ~$3000). Ten years later, when I sold it; the 50 head of fat steers alone more than paid me back for every cent I had spent on buying and improving it.** The land, now in good condition, sold for more than twice what I paid for it, so I had no need of a car in Sao Paulo - with excellent public transport, faster than a private car as either under ground subway or in bus only*** special lanes and free to me as more than 65 years old. * I would spend a couple of weekends there each month. - There were two small, 2BR houses on the land, one for my honest hard working employee - almost a serf, as he came with the land both for me and several prior "absentee owners." ** The new owner, did not want them. He planned a dairy business on my good pasture. *** A taxi with passenger can use them too.
Uh...BillyT, I think you need to reread my post, including references. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know some associate the term democratic or liberitarian socialism with small government even to the point of anarchy but not as practiced in Scandinavia. Sanders wants the US to be more like Scandinavia and so do I. My first wife was Norwegian and I have been there, briefly about a dozen times - after a week or ten days in Oslo area, I would use a 21 day eurorail pass, sleeping on the trains at least every other night.
Amazing. I spontaneously created that moniker: "libertarian socialist" when the only 2 presidential candidates [I liked] were Dennis John Kucinich, and Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul. One wonders, how many of us are there? A government governs best when it governs least. The polity should best be a service organization seeing to the welfare of all it's citizens. The libertarian part of me would like to see all special deals between the government and special interest groups unwound and done away with. That ain't likely to happen. And the present situation abrogates any concept of equality. Maybe working on one would inadvertently give the other? Is it more or less likely that equality would beget freedom? Is it more or less likely that freedom would beget equality? So, maybe I went so far right that I came back around on the left.
...or maybe you don't understand the terms you use. It has become popular these days for folks on the extreme right end of the political spectrum to misrepresent themselves. The Koch brothers are describing themselves as "classical liberals". But there is nothing classical or liberal about their ideology. It's just good old fashioned libertarianism. Frankly, it's dishonest. One has to wonder or should wonder why the so called "conservative" end of the political spectrum feels the need to rely on so much dishonesty.
He views Clinton the same way I do: In my opinion, she's a political animal. Sanders actually has a heart that you can see up front; whereas Clinton's sways whichever way the polls indicate. She's a corporate clown, in my opinion. I think the difference between Clinton and Sanders is huge. I respect Sanders because he is real. I despise Clinton because I think she would say anything to anyone depending on the leverage she might gain.
