0
5

[–] TeranNotTerran 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

To those of you in New Hampshire: Does this seem correct? I thought that New Hampshire was more libertarian than anything else? I get that Sanders would be more popular than Hilary, but not that Sanders would have a 60% approval rating overall in New Hampshire.

0
5

[–] ArchangelleShe [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

He actually has an off the charts 91% favorability rating in NH among Democratic leaning voters. I bet not even Jesus is seen that favorable.

0
1

[–] TeranNotTerran 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the poll. Does that mean 60% among democrats or among all in this instance? Regarding the 91%, what percentage of Democratic leaning voters are there in New Hampshire?

Thank you!

1
5

[–] ArchangelleShe [S] 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

This is a new poll, the last one also had Sanders and Clinton at 60-33, but this one is among independents only.

1
5

[–] W3a53l 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Its among independents that listen to NPR, odds are they lean to the left, and only 436 people were used in this poll.

0
3

[–] binky 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thank you for that context.

0
4

[–] edistojim 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Trump vs Sanders in the general election according to this. Good race. Polls sometimes turn out to be generally inaccurate in a lot of cases.

0
2

[–] mcwilshire 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's just New Hampshire. Sanders has pull with people who drive Subarus and listen to NPR. That's not a winning coalition of Democrats. He has almost no shot at winning the nomination.

0
3

[–] binky 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What can Sanders do to use this to improve his odds in other states? How can this be used to counteract the effects of a hostile media?

1
2

[–] New_years_day 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

These poll's prove nothing and are a steamy pile of horse shit. 400 people.....I'm sure there was no biased at all.

0
1

[–] arrggg 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Agreed. 400 is easily manipulated, they just called the county with the most democrats...

4
1

[–] brother_tempus 4 points 1 point (+5|-4) ago 

Polls are for those no real argument or statement

13
0

[–] HitlerIsBlack 13 points 0 points (+13|-13) ago  (edited ago)

Fuckin commies, Sanders will destroy America.

3
5

[–] binky 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

Communist. Socialist. Learn the difference.

2
1

[–] Rummel 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

There is no difference when the payload for each is the same. Socialism is just as fundamentally evil, facist, and disastrous as communism.

Facism as defined by Merriam Webster "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Bernie sanders is a facist, and you literally cannot prove me wrong.

And the key phrase here is: "forcible suppression of opposition"

1
3

[–] jaceame 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Lookie here, While I do not agree with Sander on many an issue I do however feel his ability to do damage is minimal. He does not appear capable of driving his party or making deals with the conservatives to pass his bills. The maximum I could see the man doing would be a minor increase in minimum wage and some slight changes to taxes to pay for some infrastructure. He does not appear to be a real danger or threat to the nation at large.

9
-2

[–] savageslav 9 points -2 points (+7|-9) ago 

Just like destroyed Nazi Germany and in process made a world a better place for humanity ... Also communism and socialism are two completely different things ... however truth does not matter to people like you.

1
5

[–] Trs0817 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Communist regimes killed over 100 million people. The "current popularly accepted number" of victims of the Holocaust is 6 million.

2
0

[–] TeranNotTerran 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I think that there are socialists and communists with strong ideals who don't want to be violent. The problem is that under most of the models, if you have a redistributionist society, you have to have someone point a gun at the guy not paying up. That seems violent to me, like being forced to pay into a mafia.

We already have that sort of violence on a large scale in the US. We are threatened for violence even with completely victimless crimes. And of course, for not paying the income tax which was not even allowed by the constitution until it was amended.

I think there socialism and/or communism can cross into the nazism camp is by concentrating so much power to the government. The government is held as ideal. Let's say it's a socialistic democracy. If the majority don't like blacks, bye bye blacks. If the majority don't like whites... oh, wait.

I think democracy is a loaded gun when it comes to controlling something greater than yourself. If you have any kind of a competent military or police force, the government can enforce laws to their full meaning. Of course, most people don't like to see bloodshed, but that isn't always the case. Some people are quite attracted to violence and I could see society, in time, turning to be pro-open violence. The socialisitic side just amplifies the powers of democracy and puts a different intent on it. It also tends to be a message of being disarmed (I don't know of too many socialists who are pro-gun, at least for a gun moderately equivalent to what the police might have), which makes controlling the masses much easier. The Nazis had a registration and then a confiscation, if I'm not mistaken.

Now I would agree with you if you say that there could be a "better" socialistic society than what I described. In any group, its qualities are mostly made up of the people around it. However, I think that any democratic society where you control more than your share by a vote, is able to succumb to this. And in paritcular, the socialistic message of altruism is not logically consistent. If it is more important to help my brother than myself, he is better than I. If he uses the same argument, I am better than him. If I have no value on my own and I am equal to them, applying a greater value to them than myself is simply double-think. I believe that the best beneveolence comes from when you love and value you yourself, and put yourself first. When you find happiness is through your own pursuits, you may along the way find that helping your neighbor, especially the one who isn't always asking for it, is one of the most fulfilling things you can do. And you do it for the sake of your own happiness.