Worst of Social Justice

[Art Vandelay]

I know I said it before, but I'll say it again. All of this Sanders hype is nigh-on exactly the same as the Obama hype back in '08. If the two campaigns were works of fiction from different authors, one of them would be getting sued for blatant plagiarism. I really don't understand how anyone could assume that, much like Obama, a Sanders presidency wouldn't simply be business as usual for another four to eight years, rather than the Progressive Savior that his campaign seems to be promising.

[pyro]

I know I said it before, but I'll say it again. All of this Sanders hype is nigh-on exactly the same as the Obama hype back in '08. If the two campaigns were works of fiction from different authors, one of them would be getting sued for blatant plagiarism. I really don't understand how anyone could assume that, much like Obama, a Sanders presidency wouldn't simply be business as usual for another four to eight years, rather than the Progressive Savior that his campaign seems to be promising.

If that's true, then why is everyone assuming Hillary's going to win? She was a contender last time around, too.

[Art Vandelay]

I know I said it before, but I'll say it again. All of this Sanders hype is nigh-on exactly the same as the Obama hype back in '08. If the two campaigns were works of fiction from different authors, one of them would be getting sued for blatant plagiarism. I really don't understand how anyone could assume that, much like Obama, a Sanders presidency wouldn't simply be business as usual for another four to eight years, rather than the Progressive Savior that his campaign seems to be promising.

If that's true, then why is everyone assuming Hillary's going to win? She was a contender last time around, too.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying people didn't assume Hilary would win last time? Because I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case. Not to mention, how are Hilary's chances in any way relevant to Sander's campaign promises vs what he'd actually do as president?

[pyro]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying people didn't assume Hilary would win last time? Because I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case. Not to mention, how are Hilary's chances in any way relevant to Sander's campaign promises vs what he'd actually do as president?

In retrospect, I'm not really sure either. I guess the question is whether people are expecting a different result the second time around, but I'm not quite sure what would constitute an answer to that.

[Eiki-mun]

I'm not expecting Sanders to be the progressive savior to save us from the right-wing. Anything but, really - I expect left-wingers to be more moderate than they claim, and right-wingers to be more extreme than they claim. I want Sanders because anything is better than the right-wing Republicans and the pseudo-right-wing that Hillary seems to be, in my opinion.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess the question is whether people are expecting a different result the second time around, but I'm not quite sure what would constitute an answer to that.

Well, that and why those that believe this time would be different see things that way. Really, the why is what interests me the most, here.

[nickiknack]

I don't expect Sanders to be a savior, but his election could push the Democratic party back to a spot where they can actually be an actual opposition party again, rather than what it is now. Again Obama was a mystery that turned out to be the same old, same old, Sanders on the other hand has shown consistency for his entire political career.

[Art Vandelay]

Obama wasn't a mystery. He was a senator since 1997. Finding out which bills he sponsored and how he voted on others was back in '08 (and still is) just a Google search away.

[nickiknack]

On the national level he was rather new, given he wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2005. Up until then he was only known on a state level. Sanders has been in Washington since 1990, first as a US rep, and now as a Senator.

[Art Vandelay]

His actions as state senator are just as Google-able as his post-2005 doings, and that information is still useful in guaging his overall position. Overall, I'm really not sure what the problem is.

[nickiknack]

There is a difference between State politics and National politics, you're not voting on the same trade deals or such, on a State level like you do at a National level.

[Art Vandelay]

Fair point. Still, it's not entirely useless information.

[ironbite]

No it's not but you're really not getting the point.  Most Americans don't give a damn about anyone other then their own Senators and Reps.  Obama was a fresh faced youth who came out of nowhere to challenge the perceived status quo.  Now Clinton's looking at that same challenge she had in 08 but this time from a man who's never wavered on his position to anything.  And I like that.  Are there things I wish he'd compromise and/or change?  Yes.  But Sanders is a straight shooter and I have to respect that.

Ironbite-I don't have to respect a person who's got the DNC chairperson in their back pocket.

[RavynousHunter]

That and, here in Eagleland, states might as well be micro-nations, for all the leniency they're given.

[lord gibbon]

Also, one of the reasons progressives like me are exited about Sanders is that he DOES have a record, and it's a genuinely liberal one, especially when it comes to opposing corporations.