Why is Bernie Winning?

a reply to: alan2102z


You can talk all you want.

As of right now she has 503 to his 70.

He is losing.

Will that change? Probabbly, but with the Dem superdel system, it is almost a moot point. Unless he gains a LAND SLIDE.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


No vote is locked until it is cast.

Even in the Nov election the result can change. The Electoral Collage can vote someone in that was not even on the public ballot. They are not required to vote for the party that sent them to DC. It has not happened many times but some have changed their votes in the past. But not very likly because they are picked for their party support. I would imagine the supers are picked for the same reason. Very unlikely many will jump the fence.

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: alan2102z
You can talk all you want.
As of right now she has 503 to his 70.
He is losing.
Will that change? Probabbly, but with the Dem superdel system, it is almost a moot point. Unless he gains a LAND SLIDE.

As you can see if you have followed this thread, I am talking about a lot more than Bernie. Bernie is just a harbinger of what is to come, bigtime. Whether or not he makes it on this particular run is not the point. As I said in the title of this thread: "WHY is Bernie Winning?", i.e. WHY is Bernie attracting such overwhelming popular support? i.e. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? And I stated what I thought it meant. I think there is a sea change afoot, taking place over the next few decades. It is a shame that it is coming so late, after so much destruction, and after America's fall into a rather grim space is all but guaranteed, but it IS coming. And this ship will be turned around. It will take a half-century, however.

As for HRC winning this one: I said somewhere up thread that I thought this was the likely outcome. I think the DP is too corrupt and stupid, at present, to nominate Bernie, even if Bernie is their only hope to beat Trump (which appears likely). MAYBE Bernie will prevail this round, but it would be surprising. We'll see.

ironic how you call right wingers old farts! look at old bernie! he will have to start wearing an adult diaper soon!

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
ironic how you call right wingers old farts! look at old bernie! he will have to start wearing an adult diaper soon!

Hey, I'm an old fart myself, and proud member of the American Association of Old Farts (AAOF).

You are right -- it is not about age *per se*. However, it is true that people tend to get "stuck" over time and they seldom change their views once they've fixed on some idea or other. As old age approaches, the chances of change get slimmer, and the only hope for change is in newer generations as the oldsters die off.

I got this idea from the scientist Max Planck, who said that "science advances one funeral at a time". He said that the old farts of science never get convinced of a new idea; rather, they have to DIE OFF before the new idea can get rolling. That idea hit me like a 4x4 to the forehead. I realized: "yes, of course! it is like that everywhere!" i.e. not just science, but throughout society. The oldsters have to die off before good new stuff can get established. Unfortunate but true. Before realizing that, I used to believe (idealistically) that people could generally be persuaded with reason and evidence and good argument. A FEW people can be persuaded in such a way, but most cannot, or will not. The grim truth is that they will never change their minds, and that change can only come by way of ceasing to exist, i.e. death. I hate that, but I have to admit that it is true.

In U.S. politics, the old farts who lived most of their lives being bathed in right-wing/neoliberal propaganda -- the people who gave us Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton, and Obama -- must now die off, at least in part, before we can turn back toward humane values, reasonable equality, etc., and build a worthy social democracy.

a reply to: alan2102z

Now we are getting somewhere. How many starved to death before Social Security because they had no retirement fund? Lets start with a single news story of someone who starved to death prior to Social Security because they didn't save any money. But the bigger point is shouldn't you have actually found that BEFORE you decided to support social security instead of GUESSING it works as intented? That is what I'm talking about! Stop guessing. Stop it.

You are assuming Social Security works. You never looked at any evidence before you decided it was good. Nope. So, I'm sorry but you are ignorant when it comes to evidence that supports your views. Your mindset is societies doom, that is why I'm hard on you, and most people on ATS about this issue. You are in support of all these government programs, and none of them, NONE OF THEM, have you FIRST seen evidence that they are warranted. Its an assault on the principle of science. Science is a new thing in the historical perspective, and its something that will have to be applied to politics now as the collapse of society around the world proves is necessary.

What people like you (most people) do is they hear a theory on why a government program is needed, and then blindly accept it as if it were obvious and certain. No. Wrong.

Regarding morality, if the ruling class of people like you can take my money without my permission to support their charitable causes like Social Security, but me as a member of the slave class can't take your money without your permission to support my charitable causes, then we don't have a society with equal rights, now do we?

Here is an important question for you: Is it true or false that the US Social Security office has my permission to take my money?

originally posted by: centarix
a reply to: alan2102z
Now we are getting somewhere. How many starved to death before Social Security because they had no retirement fund?

Possibly some millions, depending on whether or not you accept Borisov's work. Perhaps you remember the researcher Borisov, a few years ago, who did a study of statistics from the great depression period and concluded that there were ~7 million excess deaths, unaccounted for; presumably either starvation or complications of malnutrition. (Google: borisov great depression excess deaths.) I personally am skeptical. That sounds like too high of a number to me; I find it hard to believe. But I have to admit it is possible. The U.S. is big with vast areas of low population density. Lots of things could have happened (especially at that time; no modern tools) that no one would be around to record.

In any case, poverty was drastically reduced by Social Security, and poverty is a very serious condition that often causes malnutrition, disease and early death. We can see this in the statistics of today, globally. People living in poverty suffer all kinds of diseases and die fast; life expectancy can as low as half that of people not in poverty.

Lets start with a single news story of someone who starved to death prior to Social Security because they didn't save any money. But the bigger point is shouldn't you have actually found that BEFORE you decided to support social security instead of GUESSING it works as intented? That is what I'm talking about! Stop guessing. Stop it.
You are assuming Social Security works. You never looked at any evidence before you decided it was good. Nope. So, I'm sorry but you are ignorant when it comes to evidence that supports your views.

Sorry, pal, but the ignorance is all yours. No one seriously denies the impact of Social Security on poverty, especially in the elderly (which used to be a big problem). Innumerable papers and many books and book chapters address this. It is not an arguable point. For one example:

www.nber.org...
nber . org/bah/summer04/w10466.html
Social Security and Elderly Poverty
Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.
Social Security is often mentioned as a likely contributor to the decline in elderly poverty. Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs have been great successes, in human terms. That is, people living longer and healthier, less incidence of diseases of poverty, etc.

Your mindset is societies doom, that is why I'm hard on you, and most people on ATS about this issue. You are in support of all these government programs, and none of them, NONE OF THEM, have you FIRST seen evidence that they are warranted. ... What people like you (most people) do is they hear a theory on why a government program is needed, and then blindly accept it as if it were obvious and certain.

No. I go by the work of historians, statisticians and so forth. This is not a "theory". These social programs have been great successes, empirically. Similar programs are great successes wherever they are instituted. They were instituted for example in Russia, after its revolution, and in China, after its revolution, with both times the same results: dramatic improvement in all measures of public health and life expectancy. The controlled right-wing press never talks about these things.

The idea that these programs are NOT successful, or that they represent waste, is the product of ignorance of well-established fact, combined with anti-government prejudice that has been manufactured by neoliberal propagandists. (And again: their "anti-government" ideas are highly selective. They are not opposed to any of the government programs that enrich them or make for huge corporate profits. They are only opposed to .gov programs that help the little guy.)

Regarding morality, if the ruling class of people like you can take my money without my permission to support their charitable causes like Social Security, but me as a member of the slave class can't take your money without your permission to support my charitable causes, then we don't have a society with equal rights, now do we?

Oh boo hoo, we have to pay taxes. A fate worse than death, huh? How will we survive?! [moan, pout]

a reply to: alan2102z

I think its safe to say hundreds of thousands at the very least starved to death during the great depression. We are talking about Social Security, which only a fraction of the population is eligible for. You have implied (whether intentionally or not) that nobody would have starved to death during the great depression because of Social Security, which is wrong as I think you would agree with. So, how many of the people who starved to death would have been eligible for Social Security payments?

Most of the people who starved to death really didn't die from actual starvation but rather associated illnesses like diphtheria which would be more likely when their immune systems were weakened because of the lack of food. So, you can include a fraction of those deaths in your numbers and I'll accept that.

I believe hardly a single person would have starved to death but for Social Security, but you're welcome to suggest a figure.

I really want to know that number so you have the first piece of evidence on your side I've ever seen from anyone produce who is on the other side of the fence. That great depression was the worst economic condition to happen to the "western world" in at least 1,000 years from one family I know with a particularly extensive oral history tradition. The person I talk to was focused on the Pittsburgh, PA area where very few people actually starved to death at all. The starvation occurred mostly in the south and the west according to their report.

I'm unimpressed by reductions in poverty that took place after the 1930's because I think they are a shadow of the reductions of poverty that took place prior to that point because the USA was a capitalist country before that and to a small degree during that time. Despite FDR sealing the countries fate with Social Security, it did take decades to install a full effect. I think Social Security is a good example to use because its what got US people into this "free stuff" brain cancer that will lead to economic collapse with millions more dead than were ever saved by the programs when they come to a halt. Millions of people do not have private accounts because they count on Social Security money, and millions of those millions will starve to death when Social Security runs out of "free" money to dole out.

Social programs cannot be a success because they are based on guessing, which is impossible to do with economics as economics is not something that works on common sense, but rather they work in unexpected ways. Some people do expect these things but not most. For example, I knew Europe would be destroyed economically by immigration because why wouldn't millions of starving people pour in from every direction to get their "free stuff"? But socialists didn't predict that. It wasn't obvious that social programs fail over the long term in absolute disaster (ie Greece, Venezuela).

It will be interesting to see how many millions of American's starve to death after the collapse because they are counting on Social Security to live off of instead of using a private investment account, but as you should know the money will not be there for them except as a fraction of what was promised, perhaps not enough even for a healthy diet. Look how many decades Japan has been a dead country walking... maybe the collapse where millions of people counting on the government die because they counted on them for Social Security will take three more decades. I doubt it. I think the collapse will happen next year.

RE: "Oh boo hoo, we have to pay taxes. A fate worse than death, huh? How will we survive?! [moan, pout]"
Taxes done at gun point is morally wrong. You cannot point a gun at me and demand money. That is morally wrong. The IRS threatened to send me to prison. That is also morally wrong. Solving starvation can be done in an actual civilization, but not in the chaos of today. Yes I will moan and groan when people take other people's property without permission because that is wrong.

I respect others rights only to the degree they respect mine. You do not respect my property rights and therefore I have no respect for yours either. That is the biggest part of my view on social justice. You may well justify Social Security by statistics, but at the end of the day you're taking other people's property without permission of the owner and therefore are not on a moral ground.

"Give me liberty or give me death" US Revolution Motto

"Live Free or Die" NH State Motto

2-20-2020

The "Socialized Medicare For All" that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg advocates, is becoming a HORROR SHOW in the United Kingdom. Doctors will soon be able to deny care to those who aren't "politically correct". REALLY!

twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Bernie's back!!

Here he comes. Choo choo!

RightWingReeeeeeeeeeeeeee

etc

Bernie Bros For Life

originally posted by: alan2102z
WHY IS BERNIE WINNING? That's the question.

And here is the answer: Because Americans are closet socialists. They don't generally CALL themselves "socialists", but they LOVE socialistic programs like Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public roads, public libraries, student loans, and on and on. On some level, Americans understand that these things are essential for a decent society -- whether or not they are called "socialism".

Long post so let me cut to the chase. One thing that isn't talked about, BUT Bernie has spoken about correctly is the poor turnout of voters during what the left sees as what should be a referendum on Trump. Right now the squeaky wheel gets the grease... Many Democrats are staying home and will stay home... Bernie is very worried about this...

Trump is turning out to be not that bad...Remove his tweets and his ratings would be much higher... Hell they are higher even with his tweets than Obama's at the same point in his Presidency.

The Dems forever have always preached free stuff, remember "Obama is going to buy me a house"? The reality is a larger number of Democrats are just like Republicans that go to work and provide for their families with little subsistence from the Goverment. Add in the 44% that didn't voter for Trump or Hillary and they are these people who are not looking for free. Educated/intelligent people understands that free anything Goverment is not very good... it might be subsistence but a long way from quality of life and many Americans work hard for quality of life.

Take the BIG "pay off everyone's college loans" Really? Give me a heads up so I can take out 100k or two for my kids first...lol The average student loan in America is 30k... HOLY CRAP!! If that is a life ending loan then what is that 30k car you plan on buying next year...lol

WAIT let me max out my 25 credit cards and the Gov can pay them off too only 500k or so...hell I'll vote for Bernie too if they do that.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: carewemust

Bernie's back!!

Here he comes. Choo choo!

RightWingReeeeeeeeeeeeeee

etc

Bernie Bros For Life

God I hope he gets it...

The popcorn will be popping.

Remember Government cheese? Yep that will be about what this turns into, but hey I'm a boomer, I'm set, so enjoy Gen X,Y,Z..lol My two boys are Gen Z, I got them covered so have at it...

a reply to: alan2102z

Don't overthink it. It is obvious. Even the Democrat voters can sense the complete fraudulent nature of the Democrat politicians. Those voters won't vote Trump so they just decide to support the funny old hairless hare. Democrats are idiots anyway. If you're not a Republican past the age of 25 then you should just stay in the nursery playing with your toes.

He is only winning on the Internets and CNN...he could never win a general election.

Trump has minorities that were not on board at first.
Trump has business owners that were not on board at first.
Trump now has Moderate Democrats that were not on board at first.
It goes on and one.

The talking box will not tell you that but in the real world it matters...

a reply to: matafuchs
burnie has the castro crowd
you know that all important demographic
guaranteed to lose florida

Why is Bernie winning?

Because your other candidates are pure trash.

Bernie has a different message than the rest of them so he sticks out.

Biden, Bloomberg, whoever the heck else is running are all trash and nobody wants them.

"“In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.” - Voltaire

He is peddling the easiest thing for people to swallow. The very definition of populism

For all the people in countries suffering the ass end of socialism, this is terrifying precedent. If he wins 2020 it will embolden communism in countries teetering on the brink of taking these ideas to extremes.