(Part 2) Best products from r/SandersForPresident

Hey man, you do what you can. There are people who don't have to deal with depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts that aren't nearly as willing as you to give optimism a chance. I'd say you're doing a great job. I don't want you to just tell me what I want to hear, I appreciate your honesty.

I can't pretend to understand your struggle with depression, the love of my life is pursuing clinical psychology and I've learned through her that mental health is incredibly complex and it affects every aspect of ones' life.

I really appreciate you sharing your situation with me, and like I said I appreciate your honesty. If I may, I'd like to recommend some reading you might be interested in. Mind over mood is a book geared towards helping someone (anyone really, you don't have to be diagnosed with anything to find it useful) build skills that assist in living a healthier, happier life mentally.

I appreciate your perspective on all of this, though it is admittedly pessimistic I think pessimism is very important. Pessimists see problems, Optimists see solutions. We need pessimistic perspectives to find problems, we need optimistic perspectives to solve them.

I'm glad that despite our differences in perspective we can have this constructive conversation. I know I can come off as abrasive sometimes or so I've been told. I hope that wasn't the case in this conversation, because I think you were being very genuine. Either way, thank you for being so polite, stranger.

Hi there. Several years ago during his first run, taking a look at Bernie Sanders and his policies ultimately converted me from a social moderate/economic conservative to full-blown progressive. The "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak for me was the issue of healthcare. I had continually felt that the Affordable Care Act's mandate for people to buy health insurance was wrong/unconstitutional. However, I am a nurse, so I could clearly see that our healthcare system in this country is broken and in need of fixing.

So I did research. I actually posted on Reddit on /r/changemyview regarding the healthcare issue. I read the book Healing of America by T. R. Reid and realized something that has ultimately changed my worldview.

My vote hinges on a candidate's view of healthcare. Medicare for All as proposed by Bernie Sanders is the path to providing healthcare to all citizens. This sounds like a radical idea, but it's not. In fact, it is the financially conservative option. As a nation we spend roughly twice as much on healthcare per person per year than any other nation, yet our outcomes are poorer. Our people are obese and ill compared to pretty much every other nation. Our newborn death rate and maternal death rates are high, and for the first time recently our life expectancy in this country is dropping because our health is so poor. Despite the massive amount of money we spend to get healthcare, our care sucks. Health insurance does not improve anything--insurance companies are the middle man. They love to take money but hate to pay out for care.

With Medicare for All, we will be bringing national spending in line with other developed nations. Eliminating insurance companies will eliminate co-pays both for employers and for individuals. Drug prices and treatment prices will by necessity go down because of the power of collective negotiating, and the American public will be the largest negotiating power you can imagine, keeping prices low and affordable. Individuals will not have to pay exorbitant insurance premiums as well as co-pays or co-insurance amounts, which will stimulate the economy by putting money back in your paycheck. Businesses will likewise not have to pay premiums for their employees, which could enable them to pay employees more (not likely but possible) or would give business additional profit (a lot more likely and business-friendly).

Yes, taxes would go up, but it would still be less than your insurance costs now equating to more money in your pocket. Additionally EVERY doctor, EVERY hospital, and pretty much EVERY treatment would be covered. More to the point, people would be able to seek preventative care and manage chronic illnesses, emergency department/hospital utilization would go down, people would be healthier overall, could work longer in their lives and contribute to productivity if that's an argument that appeals to you.

Insurance companies would largely fall by the wayside, but Sanders has plans for transitioning these employees into other/related fields, and some insurance companies might still exist as they do in other countries in order to pay for cosmetic or elective surgeries, etc. Medicare for All would also cover vision and dental, which currently even with insurance are expensive and have poor coverage. As someone with both vision and dental chronic issues that is huge for me as well.

People could get whatever medical care they need without having to worry about money. That is extremely powerful to me as someone who sees people die from lack of being able to afford insulin, chemotherapy, or medications for chronic manageable diseases. I would be willing to pay more in taxes than I am now if I knew everyone would benefit from universal healthcare. But the great thing is, I'd end up paying LESS than I am now and so would my employer.

While I like almost everything Bernie has to say, this is my premier issue upon which he originally earned my vote and has kept it and will continue to keep it if he has to run again in the future. I'd love to speak more about it and can definitely answer questions.

I commend you for seeking information in an open-minded and courteous way. I will warn you that if you look more into things Bernie has been saying for years, you may find your current worldviews challenged as I did. You may find yourself afraid/uncertain as I did. You may find yourself changing just by learning more about all these issues as I did. Keep an open mind, keep learning, keep asking questions.

Pandora's Promise is a great documentary from 2013 that follows several environmentalists who were once vehemently opposed to nuclear power but are now in favor of it including Stewart Brand, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas, Richard Rhodes and Michael Shellenberger. The director, Robert Stone, does an excellent job presenting the the facts, in my opinion. The illustrative graphics used throughout the documentary are innovative and informative. I was at a dinner where Robert Stone was the keynote speaker. He spoke about his own transformation from an anti-nuclear activist to a pro-nuclear advocate. It was enlightening and he directs the documentary from the point of view of that transformation. Links: FREE YouTube (SD), Amazon Prime (HD)

I would also recommend checking out the groups Environmental Progress, Thorium Energy Alliance, NAYGN, and Generation Atomic among others. This WikiBook is a good place to start if you are looking for more general information.

Big money is center to right; it prefers control and manipulation to ensure profit at the upper echelons of politics. The Democratic party wants to appear left leaning with social policy regarding gender and race, but in all other matters it is right of center. Center wouldn't even be bad if it protected a stable middle class, but that's not the case.


I just finished reading Clinton Cash. If you have any doubts about where the Democratic party is headed if she wins the election, read this book. It will give you a clear understanding why the Democratic party under Clinton will push for more fracking, the Keystone Pipeline, further uranium sales to Russia, strip mining and more war. And if you have any doubts at all about what will happen with affordable education, then the parts in the book describing the millions of dollars the Clintons have made with Sylvian/Laureat will help you understand that the very politicians who say they will help make education more affordable actually profit from it not being affordable.

So I'm not even sure the Democrats are centrist. They are right of center.

> Ya'd think that conservatives would want to... conserve the environment.

I would think that religious people, especially mormons, would want to leave future generations with a healthy planet. Instead it's become a group that's becoming all about them, right now, and destroying the planet and civilization is righteous because it brings about armageddon. I can't say I care too much about future generations, but I see conserving fossil fuels right now as a way to save for the future. While the rest of the world depletes their supplies as quickly as possible, we'd have a wealth of it to sell at much higher prices later on, probably within my lifetime. Right now we're a relatively wealthy nation, and I think it's foolish that we're not using that wealth to create a long term prosperous future.

That said, there's a book on Amazon called the Green Bible. I haven't read it, but apparently it's supposed to use the bible to teach the importance of taking care of the environment.

Make sure to tell your friends a little to the north!

Yes, wealth inequality is a major issue and the thing we talk about a lot is that Congress has been the single biggest factor in increasing wealth inequality in the last 40 years http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588701

Because the wealthy purchase our politicians and influence their decisions, Congress acts as a vehicle to transfer wealth from middle and lower income American households to the top 0.01% who fund their elections.

We've got to stop that. By accepting no more than $540, I'm setting an example for how I believe our Congress should work. Fix the money problem, you will start to see improvements in the way Congress does business. Fix Congress: Save this nation.

This is fascinating, thank you! The election of Bernie Sanders is the best thing that could happen to U.S.-Iran relations.

Thanks to Israeli propaganda, most Americans don't understand that the Shiite peoples are non-aggressive, and only concerned to defend their national sovereignty - as opposed to Sunni fundamentalists, supported by the Saudis, who include the true jihadi terrorists. So-called Shiite "terrorists" are only defending their homelands.

My friend Jeremy Stone played a key role in opening scientific exchanges between the U.S. and Iran, before Ahmadinejad ascended to power and screwed this up. Jeremy is a friend of Foreign Minister Zarif, and speaks warmly of him. And Jeremy's foundation has commissioned the work of Gareth Porter, who wrote a book documenting that Iran never has had a nuclear weapons program: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459131754&sr=1-1&keywords=Gareth+Porter

I suspect that the Austrian artist, Karpour, who made that wonderful drawing of "Birdie", is of Iranian origin; do you know?: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CebXh5qUEAA7wc0.jpg

Approval is great, range is better though! That being said, pretty much anything is better than plurality. If you're really interested in this kind of stuff, William Poundstone's "Gaming the Vote" is a great intro to different voting systems. It gives background on how the systems came about, and how they work. It can get a little long winded at times, but I'd definitely recommend it!

Don't equate "free" trade with climate change. They're not even close in terms of definitions, context, and in terms of "agreement" or consensus by scientists. Portraying criticisms of "free" trade as it is practiced in the world within political systems as being similar to climate deniers is simply wrong.

One quick search shows a prominent economist, Paul Krugman, critiquing Mankiw and his support for the TPP which Mankiw uses the spectre of "economists' belief that free trade is a good thing" to bolster: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/this-is-not-a-trade-agreement/

Here's Dean Baker, a macroeconomist, on the same article:
https://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/correction-to-mankiw-economists-actually-agree-just-because-you-call-something-free-trade-doesn-t-make-it-free-trade

Joseph Stiglitz, another prominent economist, on the TPP and free trade: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/

The Economic Policy Institute on the TPP: http://www.epi.org/publication/white-house-wrong-fast-track-massive-trade/

Ha Joon Chang on free trade: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003Z9L4NA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

Economists on rethinking free trade: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-01-30/economists-rethink-free-trade

Great review of the book - it's a positive look at a concerning topic. I read it in a few hours and recommend it to all here. Here's a post I did to someone else with content about the book:

For all those who are interested in learning the signs of impending dictatorship, and more importantly what to do as an average citizen (don't think it can't happen here, because many people in history did), I cannot recommend this book enough. Also it's a good pocketbook size.

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century

If you want a video, you can watch this talk: Timothy Snyder, "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The 20th Century" and a book review by Chicago Tribune

edit: a sentence

Beer in one hand, waterproof phone in the other, and a shower chair. My wife and kid are visiting family for Easter, so my current responsibilities are work, sleep, and a list of chores I'm a week behind on.

I would like to take a second to express how great a shower chair is. I originally purchased it when I saw how my wife was shaving her legs. It has paid for itself in several situations, most notably that one time our 1.5 yr old kid woke up at 1 am vomiting everywhere, and we sat in the shower for containment purposes since he kept purging anything we gave him that night. Have a hard day? Turn on some hot/warm water and relax for a few min! I'd say it's one of my best life discoveries.

oh friend, there are dozens of us. DOZENS!

But seriously, YES! You can be a farmer. Yes, you. The sustainable agriculture movement is happening all over the US. Check out Acres USA, and if you have time, an apprenticeship is a great way to get started. The most inspiring book I've read on the subject is You Can Farm by Joel Salatin. PM me if you want to chat!

No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.

As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.

The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.

I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)

So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.

To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"

Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).

As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).

Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.

Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).

This is fantastic. Buttons used to be a big thing back in the 60s and 70s, but have continued to kind of hang in there since at a lower level. Great way of showing support or starting conversations with curious strangers.

You can get button making machines for about $30, and the supplies come out to about a nickle a button. Seems like every Bernie campaign office, or homebound Bernie volunteer with a printer and some time, could get going on this.

and telling people how and what they should post isn’t?

Seriously, if you want a longer post on the history of the political parties in the United States, complete with the very slow transitions, and the exceptions and alternatives, I would recommend not a post, but this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081578225X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687562&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0742508889&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=16HQ3KRJ8WXFYQ4M20F4

its a nice read.

My broad sweep of the transition of the parties is basically correct. The exceptions that are easy to point out often prove the general trend in the opposite direction.

Delegates to the convention have never been chosen purely by voters.

> why is there any stage in-between the people voting for their chosen candidate and the result being declared for that state?

Primaries are indirect elections and the delegates that are selected are not legally bound to vote for any given candidate.

> Why do delegates/superdelegates/officials need to be involved at all?

Because parties as institutions want to retain some control or veto power over who their nominee is regardless of what voters think, say, or do. The Republicans lack such a mechanism and that's a big reason why the party establishment is shitting itself over the prospect that the voters may actually picking Trump over their vociferous objections.

> Say 100,000 people vote in a primary and 57% vote Bernie. What's the deal with delegates getting involved at that stage instead of Bernie just winning the nomination for that state?

Even if Sanders won every delegate and superdelegate in Iowa (for example) those delegates might not cast their final votes at the convention for him. Usually parties cast a single unanimous vote for whichever candidate has enough delegates to become the nominee as a show of party unity. That's how it went down in 2008 and it's almost certainly going to happen that way in 2016 no matter who the nominee ends up being.

It's not really about cutting CEO pay, it's about fixing the bad incentives in CEO pay. Think about this game:

1. CEOs get paid in stock, and/or get paid benchmarked to stock performance (EPS)
   
2. CEOs are incentivized to raise stock prices as much as possible to maximize pay
   
3. CEOs have a mechanism with which to do this (funnel all available financial capital, including liquidity, into stock buybacks)
   
4. Stock buybacks raise EPS (by lowering share volume) and generate artificial demand, raising stock prices and rewarding shareholders with raw capital
   
   It's not quite that CEOs are getting ridiculous amounts of pay - it's also that the incentives for maximizing pay drive self-destructive behavior, where the company sacrifices all the money it has to investors instead of reinvesting in capital, research, or worker wages/benefits (to attract better workers).
   
   I haven't personally read this, but based on the snippets, this seems like a fair cover of the problem at hand.
   
   Of note: things have kind of already gotten out of hand. Leveraged buybacks have been a thing for too long, and the results are about what you'd expect.

Not OP but I am a jazz musician. Yes and no. Be aware that a music career doesn't just automatically happen because you are a good enough musician, unless you're incredible or incredibly lucky. I HIGHLY recommend reading the book Beyond Talent before deciding on music as a career. You will have to act as your own booking agent, social media manager, and tons of other bullshit until you are a self-sustaining business. Or get picked up by someone already nationally known if you want to be a sideman, but that doesn't happen as often as it used to 50 and even 25 years ago. Also, be ready for private lessons to be a major part of your income for a while, possibly forever.

Well no shit. They never actually get to that dilution, like you said there's not enough water in the world. In the end they just end up with a solution that is 100% water and 0% whatever the original substance is. The point is that with the procedure they go through, which is pretty much exactly what I described, they would need a sphere 1 AU radius to have the substance.

They describe the strength of their medicine by how many time they go through the process I described, though a quick bit of research shows they do it 1/100 each time. 1c is doing it once, i.e. a 1/100 dilution. 2c is doing it twice, so a 1/10000 dilution. A quick search on amazon finds this, which is 30c, that is to say 1/10^60 dilution. For there to be a single molecule of whatever the original ingredient was, the container of water would need to be 30,000,000,000 times the size of earth. And I've seen up to 40c, which is a 1/10^80 dilution. Upper estimates for the number of atoms in the observable universe is 10^82.

Luckily this suggest that at least one claim they make is accurate. Their medicine has no side effects.

Not so much. They've been voting against their own interests forever. This was to be expected to happen again. Why do they vote against their own interests? Read this book:

What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America https://www.amazon.com/dp/080507774X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_8Sj6wbCJ88R90

What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank. 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html

http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369288/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453258631&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=%E2%80%9CClinton+Cash%3A+The+Untold+Story+of+How+and+Why+Foreign+Governments+and+Businesses+Helped+Make+Bill+and+Hillary+Rich