rigorousintuition.ca

I was watching the Colbert Report tonight and there was some semi-positive allusions to him running for preznit -- he was the guest and the crowd was hyped up with everything he said. You'll probably have to wait to see the Colbert clip, but it seems like he's leaning towards running. It will be most interesting to see how he is attacked by the fake corporate left and the real corporate right and how they attempt to obliterate him from being considered. Colbert pressed that he should announce soon, so he could get the "Colbert bump".

Personally, I think he has a chance. At least in the "debates" to bring up real issues win or lose. He would though, I think, clean up on the straight left vote and possibly draw in some of the right. Then he'll probably get the Wellstone. Knock on wood. I hope Sanders runs, wins and changes shit. /off/idealism/

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/berni ... ed-tipping

Sorta on topic: You would not believe the massive number of "I'm ready for HILLARY!" bumper stickers adorning Subarus and Priuses around here.

I'm from Vermont. I like Bernie Sanders. I also know he's an establishment liberal with close ties to NatSec and AIPAC.

Not sure why anyone expects him to be much different from Hillary, aside from the fact he 1) has a penis and 2) doesn't dye his hair.

The clintons and bushes need to be sent to a comet where they melt along with it as it travels closer to the sun and then out beyond the solar system for good. But we all knew that already.

.
Presume the OP is tongue-in-cheek, as we all already know that anyone makin' it to the oval office has long-since been compromised, and as such will offer no true change we can believe in.

Nothing within the current system will produce anything worthwhile for the masses.

(pardons in advance for stating the obvious)

Yeah, you're right, Savant. I guess watching him made me wax nostalgic for the olden days of working on the Nader, then Kucinich, then grudgingly, Dean campaigns (all nominally) and thinking we "really" had a chance . I actually didn't mean the OP tongue in cheek. I know it certainly would make my mom, dad, stepdad, brother etc. quite happy to see him throw his hat into the ring. I have a rare confluence of having most of my family being liberal and if he ran I know that it would at least give my mom something to do for awhile. She's always sending me links about Bernie Sanders this and Bernie Sanders that. But again, you're right.

Sometimes I just let idealism get the best of me.

.
Let it. Let it get the best of you on occasion.

We all do -- the forum wouldn't exist w/out such occasional idealism.

In spite of the persistent forces exerted on us, compelling us to submit to apathy, indifference, defeatism, we resist.

We persist.

We return to this place to call out the wrongs, to anyone and no one in particular.

What else can that be but idealism?

.
Let it. Let it get the best of you on occasion.

We all do -- the forum wouldn't exist w/out such occasional idealism.

In spite of the persistent forces exerted on us, compelling us to submit to apathy, indifference, defeatism, we resist.

We persist.

We return to this place to call out the wrongs, to anyone and no one in particular.

What else can that be but idealism?

an epitath for a tombstone
don't we know the preznits not in charge of anything?
ya really can't blame em
they gotta be like *heads shaking* "they're so incredibly f*%%^#@ stupid"
thats whats ultimately gonna blow everything up
their search for the boundaries of stupid
like "surely, this won't fly"
ya wont idealism?
we go up and over together

I do believe there would be a vast difference between a Sanders Presidency and a Clinton's.

There seems to always be an exception to every rule and I do believe Sanders, if he was to run and were to be elected, would be beneficial to the lower classes. I would also suggest that he could possibly alter our economy and turn it away from its seemingly endless focus on highly profitable war-induced destruction to force costly reconstruction. We pay the profits 'earned' by the merchants of death and see no profits from reconstruction after war, as these are reserved for only dark-hearted stockholders.

Bernie, I feel is one of our more interesting politicians; the first Socialist mayor ever elected to office, (Burlington VT). And here's his latest on the Keystone XL, which was defeated by 1 vote. (Yea!)

Sadly, I don't think anyone like Sanders at this time could win an election for our Presidency.

.
Presidents don't 'win' elections anymore. They're selected in advance.
Though given current media's influence in groupthink, one can argue that any human with enough lobbyists, campaign 'contributions' and PR clout can make it to the oval office, perhaps without a need for 'explicit' fixing.

Indeed, the Shepherd has become increasingly adept at controlling his flock.

For all these reasons (among others) and for the specific reasons you outline above, Bernie would never sniff the Presidency.

Those managing the egregiously bloated purses in this country see zero value in such a president.

Well, yeah, of course they are, through primary and plotting beforehand. It has always been that way. I believe it's called "campaigning."

It nice to believe all candidates are chosen beforehand by a secret apolitical (?) cabal (?) to become elected to promote an Illuminate agenda, regardless their party. I can't.

But I do believe there's high-level scheming. Can't prove your theory's untrue any more than another can prove it is. Just my opinion, right or wrong.

.

Yes, I referenced campaigning above, and certainly agree that's part of it. But I wouldn't limit it simply to campaigning. Vote rigging and disenfranchising are quite prevalent, among other tactics.

I made no mention of a 'cabal' or an 'illuminate agenda' in my prior posts in this thread.

I made no mention of a 'cabal' or an 'illuminate agenda' in my prior posts in this thread.

No you didn't. I did. Not looking for an argument, but for the sake of my better understanding, would you please explain what you meant by offering this,

Presidents don't 'win' elections anymore. They're selected in advance.

Cause that's what I took it for, some cabal or a group of illuminate with the power to decide who would be the two choices for President.

And I didn't just dream those words, I read them here making similar allegations affording "them" supreme power controlling or causing nearly every strife on earth. I thought you were inferring such.

I do not believe ballot fixing at the local level is controlled by anyone other than local power brokers.

Even with Gore, he won the popular vote, but the Supremes felt he hadn't. That kind of thing could indeed come from only extremely powerful people, and none are more powerful than our Supreme Court Justices. Wealthier, sure. But none have the powers granted this court once they've been seated. And their power is usually limited to be effective only in the USA, though in some cases their rulings have world wide impact, like their ruling on what constitutes torture.

And please don't call me an apologist for our power structure. I'm perhaps just a bit more pragmatic than most of our posters.

.

Grooming of viable candidates often takes place years in advance via largely 'overt' means, playing within the rules of the contemporary system -- no cabal necessary. Simply follow the funding, media attention lavished on certain potential candidates, celebrity and/or 'thought leader' industrialist backing... it doesn't require much gumshoe work to realize the theatrics at play.

Add in increasingly influential media manipulation and spin (as I mentioned above), and vote tampering becomes less necessary as the herd get in line, fully comfortable in the 'decisions' they've been conditioned to absorb. That said, it also helps to own some of the electronic voting machines in the event of 'anomalies'.

The supremely wealthy in this country are Party agnostic. They're simply eyeing the bottom lines.

Of course, we may agree to disagree -- that's the beauty of this nation of ours.