The government, on the other hand, can take from you what they wish, and enslave you, steal from you and kill you if you refuse to comply. — NOS4A2

True, because the laws are created by the government and law enforcement (from the FBI on down to local police) therefore has to exist. But ask yourself who's creating the laws (to be enforced in the first place), and who makes up the court system that interprets the law?

It's been shown that the government is in bed with private wealth and power, and thus you will see this reflected in the types of laws that get passed, the types of rulings that are handed down (Citizens United, Janus, etc), and the varying severity of punishment and use of force. (Also look at the spreading of news and information, now done mainly through the media.)

All of these factors therefore come into play when discussing power in the country. If you believe the "buck stops" with the President, or with Congress, or with the military and law enforcement, you're missing a bigger picture. Neither the government nor private power can exist without the majority of people, and everyone in business and everyone in government knows this. Your point about violence is simply one piece. There are other structures in place: indoctrination systems (like "education") and propaganda. This is especially true of a relatively free society like ours.

Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.
So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.
* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best. — Xtrix

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me.

Don't forget the big one: do you want to exist somewhere? Well unless your wealthy parents just gifted you a house the moment you became an adult, you have to exist somewhere owned by someone else indefinitely, paying them whatever they demand for the privilege, or else eventually borrow enough money from someone else to buy a place of your own and then spend your whole life paying that back, plus however much else they demand for that privilege. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. One can see this everywhere. In the prices of goods and services, in the rise of debt and credit cards, in the rise of tuition in public (and private) colleges and universities (and thus student loan debt), in rent prices, in mortgages, in car loans, in the limited choices we're given as "consumers," and on and on.

I grew up in Andover, MA. Right next door was Lawrence, an old mill town and much poorer. I could see very clearly what money can buy, from better schools and nicer stores and less police involvement on down. But it's hard to miss even without living with that contrast. I think a large part of it is that people don't like discussing class and money.

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. — Nobeernolife

Which is exactly my point. We have our problems, they have theirs. We have our virtues, so do they.

And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me. — Nobeernolife

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. But who cares anyway if someone did? Why should you get defensive about that? It's as absurd as getting upset if someone "insults" your favorite sports team -- may be annoying, but the more interesting question is why they're doing that. Sometimes there's good reason. If there isn't, and they're just prejudiced, then in my view the proper response is to ignore them, not engage in a pissing contest about what country is "better."

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. — Xtrix

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. So why do butt in, and in such rude manner?
You might want to take a walk, take a deep breath, and get all that adrenaline out of your system, rather than banging on the keyboard.

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. — Nobeernolife

Fine. The point stands.

So why do butt in, and in such rude manner? — Nobeernolife

Because it's a public forum. If you want to have private discussions, you can. If you don't want others reading or responding to you, that's the way to go.

As far as being "rude," fine. I get this a lot. I'll agree to try and be better if you (and others) agree to toughen up a little.

Noam Chomsky on the 2020 elections and Bernie Sanders:


"We have a short-term problem: what lever do you push in November of this year? Simple question. What you do is pick the one that's least damaging. OK, after having spent five minutes figuring that out, you now go back to work trying to develop the basis for much more substantial changes to develop popular movements which will be active, engaged on real issues, never stopping or restricting themselves to the quadrennial extravaganza, but working all the time on the ground in communities, in education and in organizing activism to create the larger scale changes that are needed.

These are not alternatives. We shouldn't be trapped by the doctrinal system which identifies "politics" as showing up every couple years to push a button to select one or another candidate picked by the powerful. Yes, that choice makes a difference -- makes a significant difference -- but after making that choice (which again should take you five minutes to figure out), you get back to work.

In fact, it's no secret that the mainstream Democratic establishment are very concerned that Bernie Sanders might gain the nomination, they're doing everything possible to undermine him. Why? I don't think it's because of his policies. The fact of the matter is that his policies are an expansion of the New Deal, which wouldn't surprise Eisenhauer -- our last conservative President. But what really is bothersome is that he's breaking with the condition that the public are supposed to be occasional participants who's role in the political system is to pick one or the other of the dominant class. He's breaking with that."

FiveThirtyEight is now showing "one one" as the most likely to get a majority of pledged delegates, with Bernie shortly behind him, and Biden about half as likely as him, but given that a brokered nomination is unlikely to favor Bernie, I'm feeling sad that it's looking like Biden is probably going to end up with the nomination the way things are currently going.

I think Biden has almost no chance at this point. It's going to end up being Bernie or Bloomberg, which is a disaster. But let's hope Bernie pulls away with the delegates so it doesn't come to the shenanigans.

It looks like Bloomberg’s vast wealth and propaganda is paying off. He has moved up enough to qualify for the next debate and is surging in the polls.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/politics/bloomberg-qualifies-democratic-debate-nevada/index.html

Both Bloomberg and Sanders enjoy the support of 22 percent of respondents who are likely to participate in the Democratic primary, according to a Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday. Eighteen percent of likely Democratic primary voters polled said they support Biden, the longtime Democratic frontrunner whose standing has slipped after poor performances in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/bloomberr-sanders-biden-top-virginia-primary-115743

FiveThirtyEight has updated their predictions since yesterday, apparently. Bernie and "no one" are now about tied for most likely to get a majority of delegates (39% and 37% respectively), with Biden about a third as likely as either of them (at 12%), and Bloomberg about a fifth as likely (at 8%).

Any idea what the “no one” means? I cannot wrap my head around it.

It means that nobody gets a majority of delegates. Say Bernie gets 40% of them and Biden gets 30% and Bloomberg gets 20% and the last 10% are spread around the remaining candidates; nobody has a majority (>50%) of delegates in that case.

Bloomberg needs to die. He's seriously trying to buy the presidency. At least Trump managed on popularity with republicans, however misplaced.

Hey thanks. Makes sense.

If Bloomberg wasn't in the race, Americans would invent a Bloomberg to be in this race. His running is exemplary of American politics.

I don't know about needing to die, but I don't like him buying his way into this race either.

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, and he unleashes a “recreational pot for entire country” in first week of office plan... well... If Bernie didn’t already have it, there’s the margin of victory right there. The younger crowd who love him now will DRAG their friends to register and to the polls. When you are 20 or so, you don’t think you need free healthcare, because you’re going to live forever, or tech is gonna turn people into Marvel Avengers, or something lol. But legal weed for all? For real? Fo sho!

Then Diamond Donnie can verbally pound the Bernie Bros and Bern-outs like Lou the bar owner pummeled Tyler Durden in the basement scene from Fight Club, but all he’ll hear is “Hahahahahhaa! You don’t know where I’ve been, Lou!” :sweat:

Can't believe they showed the live murder of Bloomberg by the other candidates on stage like that

Can't believe they showed the live murder of Bloomberg by the other candidates on stage like that — Maw

Oh I can't wait to watch the video with a tub of extra buttery popcorn & a pint or three. :clap: :smirk:

:lol:

Where exactly can one watch these debates besides live TV?

Speaking of Bernie and cannabis, I have just now seen his recent statements on the issue, as quoted in article below. He wants it “on day one”. :grin: (Definitely NOT the most important issue in the election. However it just might be worth hundreds of thousands of votes in key swing states. Therefore, it is critical strategically. Also it is good IMHO how Bernie also wants to keep the marijuana money away from big tobacco companies.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/02/01/bernie-sanders-pledges-legal-marijuana-in-all-50-states-on-day-one-as-president/#39cbb1231c16

One of the issues that has bipartisan support from voters.

One of the most alarming takeaways from the debate last night came from the last question, in which candidates were asked if the person with the most delegates at the end of primary season should be the nominee even if they dont have a majority of delegates needed to officially clench it.

Only Bernie Sanders said yes, i.e. the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, while the other five on stage advocated for following the rules of the DNC which, in the case of a non-majority, would allow undemocratically elected super-delegates to vote in a second ballot to decide the nominee, and guess who the last person they would vote for would be? And with still a wide candidate field it disincentives candidates who have no path to victory to stay in the race on the chance of being favored by the undemocratic super-delegates should a brokered convention take place.

If Bernie wins the plurality of votes, but loses the nomination in this way you might as well hand Trump the election

One of the issues that has bipartisan support from voters — Benkei

Oh yes, definitely! Thanks. Though since as you know DT seems to favor the status quo (according to the article linked below. But who knows what the heck his real thinking on the issue is. He is a master at obfuscation, bluffing, and misdirection. And he would probably take that as a compliment on his “gamesmanship”, lol.) of the individual States decisions on cannabis, a Democrat opponent who favors immediate national legalization would seem to have an edge in possibly swaying any voter partial to total legalization. In other words, “stealing” votes from Trump, who conceivably would not want to lose his powerful support from the anti-cannabis lobby in its various forms. This is of course speculation on my part, an attempt at an educated guess. I could envision other scenarios as well. But this issue is more than just “some pot in every pocket”. It concerns the decades-long practices of overly harsh criminal sentences and racial and political discrimination. It’s an issue with deep roots, and one that might have an impact on the presidential election.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/16/donald-trump-and-marijuana-everything-you-need-to.aspx

Yup. Moderate Democrats should take the long game view in this. If Bernie wins in the short term and he's "too left" for their taste, they have a chance to forward a more moderate candidate after 4 or 8 years, without damaging their own credibility. It's not as if the USA is going to turn Communist or even socially liberal (in the European sense) during Bernie's presidency. The "danger", as they see it, that Sanders poses to the American way of life is totally neglible. Meanwhile, he actually may do some good.

If Bernie wins the plurality of votes, but loses the nomination in this way you might as well hand Trump the election — Maw

Well, yes... that’s the nightmare scenario, in my opinion. Of the DNC getting cold feet on a hot Bernie and screwing him and his many supporters over even worse than in 2016. It hopefully will not come to that. Personally, I hope Bernie Sanders wins the nomination handily. But as the saying goes, there is many a slip between cup and lip. Bernie must go full-speed until it is completely decided, not making any big mistakes, such as insulting potential Trump voters. Sway them, praise them. Don’t anger them as HRC did.

IF some sneaky shenanigans kept Bernie from the nomination (as opposed to getting beat fairly), then the difficult question of his running as an independent would arise. Running in the presidential election as an independent, conceivably with Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, he very possibly could win a three-horse race, despite the anguished cries of “you’ll split the vote!” Hopefully, a conservative independent candidate (or three) would take some votes from DT in that unfortunate and avoidable scenario.

IF some sneaky shenanigans kept Bernie from the nomination (as opposed to getting beat fairly), then the difficult question of his running as an independent would arise — 0 thru 9

He has stated that he will support the democratic nominee no matter what, so he very likely wouldn't consider running as an independent.

The irony of course is that, despite being called "devisive", despite the calls for "unity" among candidates, he was the only one on stage that believed the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, rather than swayed by undemocratic super-delegates.