Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[morvoran]

you look fucking hilarious from the perspective of every other western nation
imagine how indoctrinated you have to be to believe this is how social democracy works

First off, not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
Second, to what you said, only to the farthest leftists that believe all they read/hear from their own liberal media opinion sources. To most of the world, the US is a power house of both military and economy, and Trump is both acknowledged and admired for how he Made America Great Again. That is why we are being overrun by illegal aliens from a lot of different countries and our legal immigration system is backed up. I'm not sure what Australia's liberal opinion station is, but if it's similar to the BBC, then I can see why you'd think the way you do.

If Bernie ever became president or had a chance, then I would believe you when you say that the US is pathetic. One, our economy would go to shit. Two, he would be weak to our enemies/allies in other countries by bowing down to their every whim, and he'd destroy our military.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

He grabbed the DNC by the pussy.

I'd just like to clarify that they LET Trump grab them by the pussy. Completely consensual grabbing there. Only Biden goes in fingers first without permission (ask Tara Reade about that if you believe all women #metoo).

 

[Xzi]

I would quote the DOW and SNP500 hitting record highs week after week, unemployment at a record low, particularly among ethnic minorities, to the point that job openings overtaking the overall number of job seekers, the noticeable wage growth even when adjusted for inflation and a massive increase of the median household income to be just some of the improvements we've seen under Trump. During his presidency over 4.6 million people were lifted out of food stamps and into sustainable life. I know that you don't like the guy, but give credit where credit is due. Back in 2016 I was told these policies would lead to another recession - that didn't happen.

The stock market is a measure of how well corporations and the 1% are doing, not the overall economy, and it's in free fall now regardless. Biggest drop since the great depression. Unemployment being low and high job availability is great, until you look a little closer at what exactly that entails: people working multiple jobs and still unable to make end's meet, particularly if they have to care for a family. The data for average and median incomes is always going to be skewed based on the richest among us, so I don't feel like it's a good indicator of how the middle or lower classes are doing. The middle class was continuing to shrink through 2019. As far as food stamps go, I have to question whether people were "lifted" off of them or simply kicked off of them to make the statistics look better. Even now, during a pandemic, those who rely on food stamps can't be sure they'll be spared from the maliciousness of the Trump administration.

Sadly, I predict that the current lockdown will quickly undo a lot of the good, leaving behind most of the bad.

Uhhh...yeah. Two Republican presidents now in the last two decades, both of whom will have left the country flat broke and in a recession/depression. Of course that's going to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths. Right or wrong, the results they deliver are 99% of what people remember about any given president, not the steps they took to get to that point.

 

[Darth Meteos]

To most of the world, the US is a power house of both military and economy, and Trump is both acknowledged and admired for how he Made America Great Again.

that you think that is even more hilarious
you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys

trump is obama+
more corporate, more war, but now with good twitter game
you're a laughingstock, and the legend grows with every moronic statement

from the perspective of a nation like mine, where i get healthcare that's free at the point of service, massive subsidies for tertiary education, and a good minimum wage, you look... underdeveloped. you look like monsters, your politicians go out and say things like "OH, under my term as Governor, 90% of people were insured!"
the richest nation in the world has over 18 thousand people die every year due to lack of healthcare
and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
you are diseased

here are the nations who think you're a powerhouse
look at how they love you

nations were asked which country is the greatest threat to world peace- this graphic is the results

 

[Foxi4]

The stock market is a measure of how well corporations and the 1% are doing, not the overall economy, and it's in free fall now regardless. Biggest drop since the great depression. Unemployment being low and high job availability is great, until you look a little closer at what exactly that entails: people working multiple jobs and still unable to make end's meet, particularly if they have to care for a family. The data for average and median incomes is always going to be skewed based on the richest among us, so I don't feel like it's a good indicator of how the middle or lower classes are doing. The middle class was continuing to shrink through 2019. As far as food stamps go, I have to question whether people were "lifted" off of them or simply kicked off of them to make the statistics look better. Even now, during a pandemic, those who rely on food stamps can't be sure they'll be spared from the maliciousness of the Trump administration.


Uhhh...yeah. Two Republican presidents now in the last two decades, both of whom will have left the country flat broke and in a recession/depression. Of course that's going to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths. Right or wrong, the results they deliver are 99% of what people remember about any given president, not the steps they took to get to that point.

You know what? That's fair - Trump's SNAP reform does decrease entitlements and some people may get kicked off going forward, that much is true, so I'll remove that "accomplishment" from the list, even though I maintain that food stamps shouldn't even be a thing in a well-oiled economy. A decrease in recipients is a win to me, but I see how you might disagree. I'm aware of the fact that not all of the decrease is organic - some of it is legislative due to changing requirements, the linked fact check says as much (and isn't all that favourable, since people generally don't appreciate entitlement reform unless entitlements are going up). As far as income is concerned, the graph I linked is from the Bureau of Labour and Statistics and it pertains to average weekly income of production and nonsupervisory workers. While the median might be skewed, their average is not. As for the stock market, it does not only pertain to the 1% - it's a general indicator of economic health. Your 401k isn't up in the sky, it's intrinsically connected to stock market investments. The indexes aren't just fancy names - they're collections of company stock and indicate how well those entities are doing, which has a direct effect on how well the employees are doing also. The stock market isn't relegated to the elites - it impacts you and me directly, as much if not more so than politics. In any case, we're straying quite a bit off topic here, so I'll let the thread return to Bernie.

 

[notimp]

On another note, just to show the type of folks who supported this socialist, take a look at this pic:View attachment 203304

It looks like a lot of people desperate for "free stuff" really had their hopes on the US becoming a socialist nation. SMH!!!

Can someone tell that moron, that he is and always will be a moron, and that he cant read statistics?

And that he constantly falls for EVERY creative reinterpretation of statistical results based on presentation?

If I take supporters and throw them into one category for 'not working' and into more categories than listed on this graph for working (1% of dentists who like to wear blue coats), then guess what happens?

Your interpretation that 'unemplyed people gave most' is still wrong - employed people did.

But according to that graph unemployed people represented his donor base 7x more than you'd think based on a 3.6% official unemployment rate in the us. At which point I call BS and want to see the sources of that statistic.

Because I cant for the life of me understand, how you'd get to job attribution from anonymous online donations (edit: cant be anonymous - my mistake), which is what the majority of his donationbase was.

So let me look into this for a while.

 

[Jayro]

So now we get to choose between a rapist, and a racist rapist. Fun times... I'm still voting for Bernie, IDGAF.

 

[notimp]

The source for morvorvans graph is this article:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-sanders-donors/

COULD I ENTICE YOU TO FINALLY POST SOURCES (that doesnt just go for morvovan - but for everyone of you)? Because otherwise its hard to find out who made your shit up, and what their sources were.

The article is from 2016.

The graph in total shows 58% of the donors listed by occupation, so it is incomplete.

THIS IS WHY YOU USUALLY PRESENT THAT SORT OF INFORMATION IN PIE CHARTS AND NOT IN BAR GRAPHS. SO PEOPLE LIKE morvovan DONT GET CONFUSED.

The graph was made up by a LA Times journalist - wo neither listed their data, nor their methods (= thats not scientific, thats A GUY (edit: gal) doing something), nor how the HECK they were able to deanonymize 'repeat donors' merging datasets of Act Blue.
(Did they count all John Smiths as one person, and then made them unemployed because one of them was? I need at least some of their methodology - and they provide nothing.)

The Times combined federal reports from ActBlue and Sanders’ campaign to conduct an unprecedented analysis of Sanders’ contributors, including identifying people who had given multiple times.

The donations that go through Act Blue according to them account for 90% of his total funds.
-

More importantly though - we are talking about a little over 1 million contributers, according to them.

Which means

286.000 unemployed people in the US (which is 2.4% of all unemployed people, calculation: (100/11779200)*286000=2.4) gave 7 times more to his campaign than would be expected if every american gave to his campaign equally.

What was your interpretation of this graph again?

The unemployed gave most. WRONG. (Employed people did.) And they want to take my country over by making it socialist! WELL 2.4% OF THEM. Maybe.

But you discriminated against unemployed people like a BIG BOY - because some journalist didnt give a fuck and started to deanonymize individual donations of 29-96USD on average - because they were bored and had no ethics, no methodical transparancy, didnt provide any inkling of what they were actually doing, and didnt provide any of their data. And then posted graphs with half of the people donating missing.

Fun with statistics.
----

edit: Also, according to this article - students, who are the most vocal supporter group of Sanders, gave almost nothing to Sanders. Which means, that they are conveniently missing from morvorvans argument entirely - because he viewed Bernie supporters through the lens of 'who donates to him', which comes with its own biases. Also maybe they are counted as unemployed?

edit2: Also NOTHING adds up here.
LA Times in 2016 listed their data base as 1 mio donors donating 96USD on average (because of repeat donors), then they say - thats 90% of his funding base.

Except, that it isnt.

Total funds raised by his campaign in 2016 were 228mio USD:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000528

So I dont know what that journalist was smoking, when he missed half of the donors (presumably the lage ones who didnt donate through Act Blue), but I want some of it.

edit3: Sanders in 2016 dropped out on July 26, 2016 and the article was published on June 3rd, 2016 - so missing more than half of the donorbase cant be explained away by the article simply having been released earlier.

edit4: The 1 million donors figure according to the LA Times accounted for 2/3s of his donations. Since they dont list the amount of people they could get the occupational data from - I have to guess, that it is about that same 1 mio. In the worst case - I'm a third off. So you could add a third to the 2,4% figure.

So three percent of all unemployed people donated to Sanders. Scary. Not.

Especially if you think about that the US presidential system basically is 'choosing' between "four more years", or "change". And then on the change front get to decide between two flavors of change within a party. (Trump wasnt one of them.)

 

[SG854]

dont worry guys, we wont be around too much longer with the way things are going, which is why im not having children, im not reproducing if it means my children are gonna grow in a fucked world

You being the Sexiest Man Alive it'll be hard for you not to reproduce. Girls will be all over you.

 

[notimp]

I want to dedicate an entire posting on what morvovan just did in here.

He tried to make the argument, that he and or other people shouldnt vote for Sanders, because 'mostly' people out of a job would vote for him, to have an easier life.

Because that wasnt substantiable - he resorted to the next best thing, which was that he found a statistic on the Sanders donors, saw that people out of work were listed as the top category, didnt realize that there were many, many others - all of which summed up to 'working people' , and that they made up 3/4 of Sanders donation base. Then claimed, mostly people out of work would vote for Sanders.

That said, people out of a job being seven times more likely to donate to Sanders than demographics would indicate (if everyone donates statistically equally (which of course isnt the case)) struck me as intuitively odd. That factor seemed way to high.

And then I though about it for two minutes.

Most americans dont donate for a political candidates. Because they are under the correct impression, that their companies, or their bosses will do that for them. So whenever they think about 'should I give money to a candidate' they have this easy logical out of - eh, my industry is sponsoring him/her anyhow - I dont have to. Which explains why so few people directly donate to political candidates anyhow (- since in the american system there are no publically available funds and all of that money comes from sponsors).

Jobless people dont have that. If they want to have their voice heard politically - they have to spend their own money. So whichever promising candidate is left of center (edit: or right from center, shouldnt matter) gets a disproportionate amount of their donations, statistically - always.

So what morvovan essentially was saying was - a candidate that I would vote for - has to be mostly financed by corporations, or my bosses taking political donations out of my paycheck, or I would not vote for him - because he gets disproportionally more money from out of work people, simply as a statistical result. And that feels icky.

Or the other way around - "I never thought about giving money to a political candidate, because I dont have to - but all those poor out of work people, without political representation, should not participate politically through donations at all - and therefore not count politically at all".

Simply because when they do participate, and group around a candidate (maybe 3x more likely around Sanders the average candidate), then the amount of donations they give compared to the average citizen, that thinks of the being coverd by the company he works for, always tends to 'bunch up' (because the average citizen is less likely to donate to get his voice heard).

So morvovan, I think you hit a new low, even for you on that one.

(Other factors:

As written in the article - students didnt show up in Sanders donation statistics hardly at all - which could mean they didnt donate - or that many of them where filed under jobless.

7x more likely than statistically likely for Sanders also could result from different measures for joblessness used in general unemployment statistics and 'self assigned job description' when donating for a political candidate. Meaning, US unemployment rate of 3.6% seems unbelievably low. The higher the real unemployment number is, the more that 7x factor comes down.)

 

[Xzi]

So what morvovan essentially was saying was - a candidate that I would vote for - has to be mostly financed by corporations, or my bosses taking political donations out of my paycheck, or I would not vote for him - because he gets disproportionally more money from out of work people, simply as a statistical result. And that feels icky.

This should come as no surprise to anybody who's read just a few of morvoran's posts, he's a neoconservative with some fascist leanings. He's 100% on board with socialism, as long as it's the kind of socialism that exclusively benefits those who are already rich and/or powerful. Supposedly he was homeless at one point, so you'd think that experience would've given him some shred of empathy toward the poor and working class, but instead he shows nothing but contempt and disdain for anyone he considers "beneath" him. A trait he no doubt picked up from the leader of cult 45.

Of course, the homeless story could have been pulled straight from his ass like so many other comments he makes here, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out he was actually born into immense wealth and privilege. Regardless, his political views are myopic at best, unhinged and utterly psychotic at their worst. The type of drivel that shouldn't be allowed anywhere on the internet save perhaps the angst-filled middle school playground that is 4chan.

I enjoyed reading your thorough and concise take-down nonetheless.

 

[notimp]

Easiest way to sum it up is something like this:

So Michael Moore was wrong and out of work people didn't buy 'merica first hats for Trump? (Trumps way of 'helping his campaign financing a little'.)

But morvovan only votes for canidates that dont have disproportionate donation support by people that are out of their jobs. So he wouldnt have been allowed to vote for Trump in 2016.

(Because that 'bunching up' effect should show on left of center as well as right of center candidates (donation for 'change'). Of course then all Trump did was give taxcuts to his friends, but that doesnt mean that jobless people didnt support him in high numbers as well.. )

 

[Xzi]

Easiest way to sum it up is something like this:

So Michael Moore was wrong and out of work people didn't buy 'merica first hats for Trump? (Trumps way of 'helping his campaign financing a little'.)

But morvovan only votes for canidates that dont have disproportionate donation support by people that are out of their jobs. So he wouldnt have been allowed to vote for Trump in 2016.

(Because that 'bunching up' effect should show on left to center as well as right to center candidates (donation for 'change'). Of course then all Trump did was give taxcuts to his friends, but that doesnt mean that jobless people supported him in high numbers as well.. )

Indeed that's the irony of it, quite a bit of Sanders' support comes from unemployed/underemployed independents and even moderate conservatives who understand that the US is the richest nation on Earth, our government spends insane amounts of money regardless of who's president, and the working class sees zero benefit from it. Not to mention that Trump started running on many of Bernie's policy platforms in 2016 after Clinton had secured the nomination. He never delivered on any of it or even intended to of course, but the fact that people were willing to ignore their bullshit detectors and vote him in anyway speaks to just how powerful that type of populist messaging has become in recent years.

Bernie was the logical next step after the progressive "hope and change" that Obama promised fell through the cracks to some degree, and the Democratic party has failed to recognize that twice now to their own detriment.

 

[30yoDoomer]

Maybe off topic, but seeing as he was a prime supporter of it can someone please explain why you guys do not want universal health care? I feel like you guys need it more then ever now...

We pretty much have it already. You can be the IRL version of Oscar the grouch (but with more crack) and shortly after they wheel your indigent ass into the hospital for a cardiac event you'll be signed up for medicaid.
I think the only ones who get screwed are the solidly middle class people who lack a group plan through their employer, and some elderly who didn't off load their property to their kids early enough (assisted living burns through it quick).

 

[Waygeek]

lol at the bernie extremists calling 4 more years for trump because useless bernie bowed out like the useless pillock he is.
4 more years for trump was a lock years ago. trump is not a disease. He is a symptom of a disease. A disease called america. He was inevitable.

Should have been Warren. She is awesome.

 

[30yoDoomer]

Should have been Warren. She is awesome.

Watching her eviscerate Bloomberg on stage was magical. She probably could have done the same to Trump during the debate, but I'm not sure if it would resonate with the mushy middle - additionally I think her likeability is that of a Hillary 2.0 (meaning low)

 

[morvoran]

@Darth Meteos Since this site doesn't have any moderators anymore, I guess I'll reply to your offtopic post......

that you think that is even more hilarious
you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys

It's so funny how you think because a person had his own show, that disqualifies him from office. What jobs are allowed to make someone a good president in your mind? SMH
Why do you have to fatshame anybody and make fun of his skin color? That's not very tolerant of a very obvious liberal. Shame on you and your hatred.
He may talk shit, but I'd rather have a crass president that makes my country better than a lying piece of shit that stabs their citizens in the back like the democrats that keep promising "free stuff" like Bernie but never come through.
As for him getting little done, what have you, your family, or your PM done? That is an opinion that is way off from the truth.
Check this out - https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/
You can take that "gets little done" opinion of yours and shove it up your "do nothing" behind. Maybe, you should stop listening to your liberal leaders and opinion tv people.

trump is obama+
more corporate, more war, but now with good twitter game
you're a laughingstock, and the legend grows with every moronic statement

Obama doesn't compare to Trump in anyway. Obama made promises to end wars but started more. Trump has ended wars. He has helped the US citizens way more than the corporations have benefited. Not sure where you get this "laughingstock"? If you're anti-america, anti-freedom, etc, then that's on you. Just don't spread lies and keep your liberal lies to yourself, please.

from the perspective of a nation like mine, where i get healthcare that's free at the point of service, massive subsidies for tertiary education, and a good minimum wage, you look... underdeveloped. you look like monsters, your politicians go out and say things

Your countries healthcare is better than most socialist healthcare according to some sources, but don't go acting like it's better. The only reason it could be said to be better than the US' is due to the fact that you can also get good private healthcare when the public healthcare fails you. Who would want to wait up to 3 months to see a doctor of the government's choosing to get a procedure for a "non-life threatening" condition when it could become fatal by the time you see them. I'd prefer the private option that I pay for where I see a doctor quicker.
I can even go further to say that our healthcare system provides most of the innovation and advances in the healthcare industry. This can only be accomplished in a capitalist system such as ours. It must be nice to live in a country that sucks off the teets of our advancements and gives them away for "free" that you laugh at. It's also not free at the point of service if you pay higher taxes for it unless you are unemployed.

the richest nation in the world has over 18 thousand people die every year due to lack of healthcare
and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
you are diseased

We are rich because our citizens are rich. People have options to get healthcare, either through government assistance or from an employer. If you are in your 50's and work at McDonald's, don't go crying to me because your job doesn't provide you healthcare. Just because your puny country/continent has so few people, you can't compare the numbers of deaths each year. Eighteen thousand people is barely 0.05% of our population.
I have no idea about that Nuremberg nonsense. I guess that would make more sense if I lived in a British prison colony.

As I said before, your opinion are obviously not your own as it is full of liberal bias that you must have read/heard on Tv or on leftist websites. Please go and learn something for yourself instead of being a sheep for the left.

 

[notimp]

and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
you are diseased

Just for giggles:


(The thing is, there is no other enforcing power than the hegemon (see: hegemony).)

 

[City]

that you think that is even more hilarious
you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys

trump is obama+
more corporate, more war, but now with good twitter game
you're a laughingstock, and the legend grows with every moronic statement

from the perspective of a nation like mine, where i get healthcare that's free at the point of service, massive subsidies for tertiary education, and a good minimum wage, you look... underdeveloped. you look like monsters, your politicians go out and say things like "OH, under my term as Governor, 90% of people were insured!"
the richest nation in the world has over 18 thousand people die every year due to lack of healthcare
and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
you are diseased

here are the nations who think you're a powerhouse
look at how they love you

nations were asked which country is the greatest threat to world peace- this graphic is the results

Source on that map?

 

[Pacheko17]

Why do 99% of US politicians suck?
Bernie, Trump, Biden, they're all shit.

 

[Xzi]

Should have been Warren. She is awesome.

Warren hired a bunch of ex-Hillary staffers and then failed to win her own home state. She's done some positive things in the Senate, but her political instincts are garbage when it comes to running a larger campaign. Along with her ridiculous attempt to smear Bernie and endear herself to the establishment, trying to be the "compromise" candidate between progressivism and neoliberalism instead just made everybody in both camps dislike her.