Who could have imagined that six months ago Bernie was behind Hillary by 50%. Is this the political revolution this country has been waiting for?
Yes, could very well be, but he cannot do it alone, that reactionary congress has to be removed like so much unwanted material that finds itself on the bottom of my shoe from time to time.
To think that he did it all without corrupting himself by taking big money endorsements.
It is, but it isn't.
Clinton was tendered nearly 400 delegates before the race even began. Not guaranteed, but still a nice chuck of pledges. Sanders needs to win big in several states, in order to overthrow the establishment and show himself as clear choice of the people. This the DNC (or DLC aka the New Democrats) cannot undermine. Nevada and South Carolina are critical. But, what is in his favor is: his momentum, base growth across the board -especially regarding race, gender, income and education. Also, his peak age range is 18-45 whereas Clinton is very choppy below 55. Now, add his stellar - loud - message, minimal rhetoric and, let's not forget, his donor power. An hour post NH he raised 5M. Even across the aisle he has some serious Republican support. If he takes Clinton, he has the presidency. And then the revolution begins.
I think I remember you hit on the point that a deal was made when Hillary conceded to Obama. Isn't it then possible and maybe obvious with the tie breakers that the winner was chosen back in 2008 by the elites?
The same thing happened with McCain and Bush. The elite just keep taking what they want and the American people sit by and take it. It seems anybody that runs has to make a deal with the devil to gather enough support from their own party to be successful.
The silent majority is waking up and that can make the big difference. Too many have remained home in recent elections because the fix is in and we know it. I'm guilty, but silent no more.
To a great extent it does seem that way among politicians. I'm not as suspicious of outsiders making a deal with the devil...but, that could happen somewhere along the line in a political career (or before).
I wish Elizabeth Warren and Franklin Graham were running. But, wishing is admitting what isn't.
I like what Warren has to say about many topics but I think she knows the Hillary fix is in and why waste the time and energy if you know the outcome? Graham with his religious convictions would be too polarizing and therefore more impossible than even Bernie.That is what this country has become and no matter what the commoner wishes to do it seems impossible to change it. I would suggest that we have sold our souls to the devil as we are not looking out for our children instead falling for short term so called fixes to our miserable handling of it all. We headed the same direction as all the great empires. A victim of our own greed and conquest.
I hope you're wrong (heading the way of other civilizations), but I doubt it. I see the same thing - in our greed for what we cannot afford, we've sold our future and are headed down the long road down.
The greedy elites have sold us out...its time to take America back and make it great again. I don't trust Hillary to do that, and I don't trust Bernie's plan. I think Warren would be a great woman president, she is genuine.
Any of the other Republican candidates are bought and paid for and can't beat Hillary...so a vote for them is basically a vote for Hillary. Dr. Carson, I really like him.
That leaves only Trump and he can beat her fair and square...but she isn't playing fair. It is going to be legendary watching Trump and Hillary battle it out.
Hillary is for more government control, special interests...
Trump is for "We The People" and making America great again.
That's odd, Warren would have been my first choice, as well.
Hi, Cred. I haven't seen you in the forms much, I hope everything is going well for you and your loved ones.
Warren wouldn't be my first choice for president, I don't think and I guess I will never know since she isn't running this time around. She would be better than the Dem choices in 2016 though, but she would likely allow most of Obama's executive over-reaches instead of repealing them. But, I'd be cheering for her to get the nomination over Hillary or Bernie.
But, Trump beats them all! just had to say that.
I take Bernie's plan to be inclusive. If you disagree with some of the things he proposes and agree with others he is still a different candidate than all the others. He proposes we the people should decide what we want and how to do it. He wishes to unite the people against the staid political machine that produces the corruption, grid lock and greed that is now our normal state. Bernie's plan is to give you a say and choice in how the country should move on from the past and become about us again. If you disagree with something he proposes you will have a greater say than all of the other candidates offer you. He is the obvious choice for change and maybe our last hope of righting the downward spiral we have been going for decades. With Bernie you have a voice, with all the others you have to sit back and watch the spectacle.
I think that if Bernie actually said any of those things - that he wishes to unite people against the current political machine, or that he wants to give people a choice in how to run the country (and meant it) the party would not only drop him like a hot potato but make sure he never held office again.
You remind me of my sweetheart for a sister in-law who I admire, respect, and love with all my heart. I can not imagine anyone ever saying an unkind word about you. If, I ever see it, I'll be right there by your side...even if I don't agree with you about Bernie.
Socialism doesn't work. Venezuela’s problems today is a good example of where the USA is heading under socialism. Its a nightmare, where no one prospers except for the rich and powerful. Under socialism there are no private property rights, everything we own could be confiscated and redistributed. There is no free trade. Productive citizens get robbed. There is more poverty and crime under an arbiter.
History shows that socialism equals tyrannical rule. A tyrannical society acts in the best interest of a small but powerful group. In his life-time, Bernie has positioned himself with his support for communists.
Socialist China's economy is going to collapse, but I think they will hold it off until after the US elects a new president. China is already hiding economic news out of China. That's what they do. If a Republican wins the presidency, China will blame it on the Republicans. The sad thing is that there are people who will believe the propaganda hyped up by the liberal press, nothing new.
My concern is for our next generations. Something has to be done to right the wrongs that have been committed by the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations before its too late. Its broke.
Because of the the super delegates, the very wealthy, Wall Street backed Hillary Clinton is pretty much assured of the nomination. $$$ money talks.
I really believe your heart is in the right place but you have been seduced into a right wing myth that wants to spread fear and not information. One of our greatest presidents was a socialist and only death prevented him from being elected again.
"Of course, modern conservative extremists who worship at the altar of unregulated and unfettered capitalism, have tried to make the concept of Democratic Socialism a vulgar expletive and have wrongfully associated it with Communism and Fascism. What they fail to tell you is how the policies and principles of Democratic Socialism created our interstate highway system, public utilities, public universities, Social Security, and an economic safety net for those unable to work due to legitimate disabilities." 
"Modern conservative extremists also don't want you to know that the erosion of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws coupled with banking deregulation were the central and pivotal factors that led to our recent Great Recession. They demonize labor unions as socialist entities and abhor the idea of collective bargaining, but that is exactly why middle-class wages are stagnant, but executive compensation and corporate profits are at all-time highs." 
Without socialism in this country many of these programs would not exist. We exist because we depend on each other.
1. The Military/Defense
3. Public Libraries
5. Fire Dept
6. Postal Service
7. Student Loans and Grants
9. Garbage Collection
10. Public Landfills
12. Farm Subsidies
15. Congressional Health Care
16. Polio Vaccine
18. Social Security
20. Public Schools
21. Jail/Prison System
22. Corporate/Business Subsidies
23. Veteran's (VA) Health Care
24. Public Parks
25. All Elected Government Officials
26. Food Stamps
27. Sewer System
29. Court System
30. Bird Flu Vaccine
31. G.I. Bill
32. Hoover Dam
33. State/City Zoos
35. Free Lunch Program
36. The Pentagon
39. Health Care for 9/11 Rescue Workers
40. Swine Flu Vaccine
41. Disability Insurance (SSDI)
America loves these programs and will not do without them as they are an answer to social woes in the country and the extremism that unbridled capitalism creates. Socialism is the reason why America came out of the Great Depression caused by rampant capitalism. We have been socialists from the beginning even before Marx wrote about it. The word is what scares most while not knowing it is what we are. Our government provides for the greater good by using other peoples money.
 http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 … alrea.html
 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/2 … ed-America
Bernie will overtake Hillary and get the nomination, but and I say but. He won't be president as Cruz is the man who will win.
Is that considered a tie, and there is still hope that Bernie gets the nomination? If so, there is still hope!
Added: (did some reading)
That was decided by coin tosses for dividing up O'Malley supporters. She won every coin toss. The actual delegates are still split between her an Bernie. Its not a true win by the media, or at least some of it and the Republican National Committee is considering it a disaster for her because she's going to have to battle with Sanders for months now. New Hampshire is next, followed by S. Carolina and Nevada, I think.
I think we can take time to breathe as this is just the beginning.
Added: I am seeing accusations of Voter Fraud by two Clinton Caucuses. (caught on camera)
An incompetent socialist or the one who is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI. Great choices Dems!
Define incompetent as it applies to any of the politicians running..
Never owned a business, never invented anything, never had a 9 to 5 job, 23 years in office and never proposed a bill that passed, lived off of welfare,
Hates the rich, has a net worth of $300,000
So incompetent includes who else? Is Trump competent because he is a celebrity and businessman? What about Rubio who hasn't done a thing in the Senate nor does he show up to vote? What about Christy and his scandals? Are teachers incompetent to teach that which they never had a job at? What about car salesmen? Should they know how the cars operates in order to sell it? Your specifications are ridiculous. As I thought.
You don't think a car salesman should know how to operate a car?
This is how a Bernie supporter is born.
You don't have to know how to do something to sell it. The gift of gab is universal in selling anything. Just look at Rubio. Your opinion is how old ideas fester and spoil.
So you use the same logic to discredit Rubio that you are using to boost Bernie? Interesting.
The same logic doesn't apply as Rubio is a robot with no new ideas and Bernie has answers with plans you just don't like.
You just said that somebody doesn't have to know how to do something to sell it, pointing to Rubio. Yet earlier you asked if teachers are incompetent to teach that which they never had a job at, pointing to Sanders.
So which is it? Does experience qualify a person or not?
What is funny is your word games feigning understanding of the point being made to a literal interpretation not in the meaning. Thanks but no thanks for this journey down your wormhole of confusion. You know what I meant and if you truly do not "get it", I don't want to waste my time in this fallacy of yours.
Oh I get it. Bernie has no experience which makes him qualified. Rubio has no experience and he is not.
Bottom line, you like Bernie and you have no idea why.
They only way that the 'Bernie' can sustain his "tie " is if America's youth continues to NOT vet him and his voting record . And if the old hippie voters take one more toke . Hillary "won " all the coin tosses huh ? Did I hear six ? I'd like to see that coin please .
Its hard to believe that my Bernie Sanders Flip Flops are selling like crazy these days. I wonder if it is that they want to step on his face.
I am sorry to say my friend but Bernie is the only one out there telling it like it is. You may buy into the rhetoric surrounding all the free stuff and socialism/communism but he is starting many people thinking that the system is rigged and he is right.
Oh, my Bernie Sanders Flip Flops are not free stuff. I am more interested in capitalizing on Bernie Sanders products while I can. (Trump products out sell B.S.) Bernie may say he isn't interested in having the government run the grocery store downtown and the production, but his socialist / communist history tells me he lives up to his initials.
He isn't telling what he doesn't want the voters to know. That being said, I would rather see B.S. win the Democratic nomination, but I don't support him even though he does make some sense, some times (not enough).
Bernie isn't the only one saying the system is rigged, but I do believe he is right about it and I'm glad he isn't biting his tongue. Hillary would do anything to have the power as president, whatever it costs or takes.
Politics hasn't been so interesting for a long time. I hope everyone makes it through alive.
We all complain about the government and the politics yet when there is a clear way to change it we run away like our hair is on fire. Bernie wants to get us all working and contributing again rather than at best, maintaining and at worst losing our standard of living through the downsizing of American job pay and losing our freedom by it. We have run up colossal debt our children will never be able to pay back and we owe it to do something about it. If you have not had enough of the rigged system by which the corporation duck out of taxes and instead receive corporate welfare then vote along the same lines we have for the last thirty years, then what is it going to take? Hillary offers "New Plans" of change while being paid off by the same people who she wants to reign in? Trump offers more trickle down by cutting corporate taxes to 15%. We have steadily reduced corporate and higher income taxes for the last 40 years and the deficit and debt has increased steadily since while wages and job loss has increased. Instead of learning from the past when in the fifties and sixties we saw the rise of the middle class become our biggest achievement, we instead look to the past thirty years and the trickle down lie that has strangled us to change something new? I am not saying we need to raise taxes to the levels of the past but by reducing them even more will do nothing but deposit more wealth overseas which is estimated in the trillions. We need a new set of clothes because the Emperor is now naked.
I respect what you have to say, you do challenge me and I like that.
Trump is a person who has lived the American income tax nightmare, he breathes it everyday. I trust that he knows fully what needs to be done to put more money in individuals' and business' pockets to grow the economy. There are many things I do not understand, but I do know that some things have to take place prior to moving other things along in a better direction, and Trump gets it. Reagan got it!
"TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"
Bernie on the other hand does not understand economics well from what I have read. I think B.S. or Hillary would create more individual / corporate nightmares that would continue the trickle down effect of erosion we are on.
Trump is just a 'Thurston Howell III', born with a silver spoon in mouth. He works well on the side of the bourgeoisie against the middle class and working people. He has never done anything for anybody except line his own pockets.
I never figure out why conservatives think that rich people like this are qualified to do anything for anybody beside themselves?
Bernie comes from the trenches and he's 'got it'. His support dwarfs that shown for any of the other candidates on either side of the political isle. Feeling the Bern, this is a major brush fire that will not be put out.
He has never done anything for anybody except line his own pockets.
Respectfully, you are confessed and don't know much about Trump. Those reruns of Gilligan's Island don't help. Wake up!
“Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie”?
Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping,
And when the revolution comes,
We’ll kill you all with knives and guns,
(sounds like a radical Muslim invasion to the tune of “Frere Jacques.”)
Is Bernie Sanders a Communist? (Hint: can leopards change spots?)
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/is-bernie-sa … AwFX54V.99
Bourgeoisie, Bernie sings!
I can understand that you have fond memories of the Gipper but he was what started this whole spiral down the drain. I know because I was there. His tax policies and spending tripled the government and set us up for Bush Sr. to continue this trend. Unemployment was at 10% under Reagan and job growth was 0% under Bush who carried on the same policies. Reagan built up the military which was the backbone of his plan. It created a booming drunken federal spending spree that we are still paying for.
Reagan’s tax cuts brought a rapid ballooning of the federal debt, which was $934 billion in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he departed in January 1989, the debt had jumped to $2.7 trillion, a three-fold increase. And the consequences of Reagan’s reckless tax-cutting continued to build under his successor, George H.W. Bush, who left office in January 1993 with a national debt of $4.2 trillion, more than a four-fold increase since the arrival of Republican-dominated governance in 1981."
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.”
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,”
5. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.
6. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. 
The democrats are pushing for more services shaming us into more social changes and the spending associated with it and the GOP is using the same old scare tactics with national security and economic cuts that have not helped at all.
Bernie wants to stop the senseless sending of the money to the top and wait to see what happens. It is a big lie and has never worked. How can you tell you might ask? Look at the deficit and the growth of government under both democrats and republicans and who has gotten rich as a result to put this all in perspective.
 https://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/t … aganomics/
 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ … entennial/
I know it sounds extreme but between the Democrats and GOP, tax cuts create deficit spending. We cannot spend our way out of it and we must do something to curb the legacy of debt we are leaving our children. How about we pay the people a decent wage and work our way back to prosperity. The good paying jobs we used to enjoy have vacated themselves overseas so we have to catch up by paying our people a decent wage here and allowing the wealthy to catch up with our deficit burden..
I am sure Colorfulone can speak for herself, but I hope she finds my response to rHamson helpful too.
From the White House.
Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.
In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.
I'm not saying I trust what I read on the White House website more than the links you provided...but, can or would you?
From that website: "He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism." Of course this website will tell a good story especially when the person being quoted writes part of it.
It is true we enjoyed a resurgence in the economy but it was at a deficit spending level never seen since WWII and it was done at interest rates that could not be sustained. The results were deficits that were astounding and in today dollars incredible. Many have said that Reagan could not be elected today with the political climate surrounding the elections.
"During his failed bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination George H. W. Bush famously described Ronald Reagan’s “supply side” doctrine — the claim that cutting taxes on high incomes would lead to spectacular economic growth, so that tax cuts would pay for themselves — as “voodoo economic policy.” Bush was right.He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism." Even the rapid recovery from the 1981-82 recession was driven by interest-rate cuts, not tax cuts. Still, for a time the voodoo faithful claimed vindication." 
"The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike. What happened instead was a boom that surpassed the Reagan expansion in every dimension: G.D.P., jobs, wages and family incomes." 
Knowing that Reagans' tax break fallacy of Voodoo economics failed miserably, he got himself into trouble when he tried to put a halt to the idea of raising taxes as Reagan had to do. Remember the "Read my lips, No new taxes" debacle. It cost him a second term.
This theme keeps coming up because it has been repeated so many times that it is assumed to be now a fact. The fact is that a short term success was enjoyed at a terrible cost. It is right out of a propaganda manual on how to make something it is not.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opini … .html?_r=0
So you were there... and you have found these sources that agree with your memories. Hmm...
I know there are credible pro and con Reagan sources available to all, so rather than start a link war, (yours were a bit biased don'cha think), how about a simple question and a few counterpoints.
Do you give any credence to sources that disagree with your perspective?
Like ones that mention;
It was Paul Volcker's, (appointed by Carter in 1979), anti-inflation policies that are credited as a major contributor to the 1980-1982 recession that Pres. Reagan inherited. He came into office with an average inflation rate of 12.5% in 1980, but reduced it to 4.4% by the end of his presidency.
It is true that unemployment was 10+ percent in 1983, but averaged only 7.5 per cent over his presidency. And it is also true that he raised multiple taxes, as is the fact that he reduced the income tax rate to 11% for lower income earners.
How about the economic growth indicated by a high GDP growth of over 8% in 1983, and an average of over 3.4% for the remaining years of his presidency? What is Pres. Obama's GDP growth rate? .7 - 1.7% per year?
Among all the criticism of "Trickle-down Reaganomics" policies, it is seldom mentioned that federal income tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7 billion to $549 billion. Or that several nationally recognized economists, (Friedman, Mundell, Laffer, etc.), proclaim the Reagan years as the start of the longest period of peacetime prosperity since the Eisenhower years.
psst. His administration is also credited with creating 16 million new jobs.
As you can see, there is much to contest on just the domestic issues. But I think foreign affairs issues, (dissolution of the Soviet Union, falling of the Berlin Wall), present a much more visible picture of Pres. Reagan's successes.
I too was around during the Reagan years. But I remember them differently. Not only do I remember the 80s as a time of personal prosperity, (as a small business owner), but also as a time when it felt good to be an American again.
So yep, I share Colorfulone's fond memories of The Gipper.
As for foreign affairs, you give Reagan too much credit. The real hero was Mikhail Gobachev, a totally different sort of Soviet leader. If Reagan was up against a Kosygin, Andropov or Khruschev all of the credit of saying Reagan ended the cold war would have never had happened. It was just the luck of the Irish.
I remember Star Wars and Iran Contra and the cover-ups, the Sandinistas, Grenada and much of the meddling in the affairs of our Central America neighbors. His 'constructive engagement' with the apartheid regime in South Africa. The way he could sort tyrants as either authoritarian (Ok) or totalitarian (not ok). Tyrants all, nevertheless. We all did not have the warm feeling during the 1980's, the 1990's were better. That was under the watch of William Jefferson Clinton.
I did like the way REagan fired the air traffic controllers on strike, I was a scab back in those days taking and passing the test to fill the vacancies that were left.
It wasn't "morning in America' for us all. Never liked all of his hominies and one liners. But, I give him credit for being a courageous man in March, 1981, bouncing back in such good spirits after an assassination attempt. I thought for sure that the jinx of every President elected in an year ending in 0 since 1840 dying in office would rear its head once again. But with the Gipper, it was again the luck of the Irish.
He was amicable fellow, but his politics were atrocious.
I did not have to look far from my own experiences for the many failures of Reagan that now have many harkening back to those days. Any sources I come up with can be termed biased as long as they don't agree with the others point of view...don'cha think also? Why would I confuse the point by citing opposite viewpoints. A bit duplicitous if you ask me. Besides the opposite spin is hard to substantiate and is why I linked my sources unlike my experience which could be termed subjective and also damning.
Carter's inflation rate which threw the economy into a tailspin was in contrast to Reagans ignoring the National Debt to gain the short term benefits of spending now and paying it back later. Only we never paid it back. Had Reagan and Bush HW balanced the budgets the National debt would be lower by 13.5 trillion! 
"When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class." 
I won't defend Obamas tax policies but as you cite Carters horrible handling of the economy so was Georgey Jr's legacy directly tied to what Obama inherited with a crashed economy and more than reticent Congress to help him. Reagan ignored the deficits in order to shore up the economy.
"When Treasury Sect. Paul O’Neil complained that cutting taxes would increase the deficit, V.P. Cheney just replied “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” In fact, many seemed to like the deficits and complain about them only when Democrats were in power. They saw them as helping to “strangle the government.”
Among all the criticism of "Trickle-down Reaganomics" policies, it is seldom mentioned that federal income tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7 billion to $549 billion. Or that several nationally recognized economists, (Friedman, Mundell, Laffer, etc.), proclaim the Reagan years as the start of the longest period of peacetime prosperity since the Eisenhower years.
Once again you cite the success of Reagan's policies ignoring the deficit spending as successfully inspiring new job growth and tax revenues while also raising taxes to the middle and lower class as a success. Any robust economy will produce more tax income but at the expense of not paying it back is a loss. The deficit and it's interest now compounding in the billions and soon to be trillions is a colossal failure. We are and have been insolvent beginning with Nixon when he instituted the petro dollar with Saudi Arabia. Reagan just blew it up.
I think that it is not a matter of a factual debate but a selective reasoning that guides your musings. I am very happy for you that your success was good when Reagan was President but attributing it to sensible and competent leadership I have a problem with.
So yep, I share Colorfulone's fond memories of The Gipper.
Memories are a funny thing. We remember the good times and tend to dull the not so good times especially when others remember the not so good times ruefully.
 http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reaso … r-lifetime
Greetings rhamson, As already acknowledged, a link war of counter-perspectives would be relatively easy to wage. For ever but there is an if only, and for every accomplishment there is an at what cost criticism. And for each armchair evaluation like yours and mine, there are credible and knowledgeable historians and economists to support our perspectives.
And yes, both perspectives will be buttressed by biased sources. So allow me to reply to your, and Credence2's above responses with this...
From a Heritage Foundation article, (yes, I know they are usually as conservatively biased as thinkprogress is liberally biased), I was surprised to find this;
The question, "How great was Ronald Reagan?" was posed to seven political historians, and the article was a compilation of their answers. Hopefully you will check it out and see that their views aren't just those of Reagan sycophants.
My take-away, and response to Reagan criticisms is best described by this quote from the article;
"Has he been a great president? Let us begin with the acknowledgment that at the very least in the short run, Reagan has left the nation stronger, more prosperous, and more confident than he found it. Unless sometime in the next several years we fall victim to a catastrophe that can be convincingly traced to his policies, it will be hard to rate him a subpar chief executive. Yet it will be difficult even for those in sympathy with him to argue that he has achieved greatness." - ALONZO L. HAMBY, a professor of history at Ohio University.
ps. Hey Cred, imagine my surprise to hear you preferred Clinton's 1990s to Reagan's 1980s.
Once again I reiterate you are basing your argument on short term outcomes and not the whole picture. As links are not what you wish to cite and the factual outcome we have many years since digested I think the discussion takes on a subjective air and therefore an argument of favor over conscientious responsibility. This is in no way a slight of your opinion nor the learned historical scholars you referred to but it is mind over logical objective conclusions.
Reagan was a great leader and communicator and scared the hell out of me with his military build up and resolve. But he was also a salesman who sold us a bill of goods that many misinterpret and has become the basis of a vernacular that promotes a falsehood. That being lowering the taxes of the wealthy spawns jobs and growth. What we have now is a common acceptance of that theory divorced of historical accuracy and responsibility. Yes Reagan took us out of a recession and plunged us into a debt I fear we won't ever responsibly address.
Most impressive of Mr Sanders.
From a near 50 point spread to a very slim 3 point loss, I'd say he won Nevada. In fact, he did win the two largest counties and both the Latin and African American vote. Without the un-pledged super delegates, Sanders and Clinton are tied with 51 delegates each, going into South Carolina and just 8 days from Super Tuesday. Again, most impressive.
all the pundits say that Bernie is moribund, well I am not giving up. Considering the institutional advantages as the party's heir apparent bestowed on the Clinton candidacy, Sanders is doing well. I am hoping that that momentum that he has will, over the next few weeks, negate Ms. Clinton's structural advantages. Without the intensity of the Bern that will incinerate GOP house and senate majorities, we just as well resign ourselves to suffer 4 years of the Trumpster.
The 'Bern' is still there and fire has yet to be extinguished...
"I really believe your heart is in the right place but you have been seduced into a right wing myth that wants to spread fear and not information."
No fear here dear! I'm surprised at you for saying that and disappointed at the same time. Cheap shot! That sounds like one of Bernie Sanders' mythical ways of telling the truth as he wants his followers to believe it.
Bernie says that he holds public officials accountable, but he does not.
Has not helped with the IRS investigation
Bernie has not held Hillary Clinton accountable for Benghazi etc.
Nothing so far to hold the EPA accountable
What about the officials at the Co. Gold mine
The Obama admin. illegal changes to the Affordable Care Act etc.
(this list is much longer...)
For Bernie to say he holds public officials accountable is noting a lie. There are many lies that Bernie Sanders spreads...and he wants to be president of the US. I don't think so! Bernie Sanders supporters have been "seduced" with his myths but most Americans know the truth.
There are many more...These are not his biggest myths.
So! When Bernie says he holds public officials accountable and we say nothing to correct the myths....are we a part of it for not telling the truth?
I'll help you get real information spread on Bernie Sanders.
I'll share the myths of B.S. Want more?
But, its a waste of time 'cause Sander's race is done!
That leaves Hillary for prison or the White House.
Your desire to taint Bernie Sanders with government failings is also a right wing set of myths that if you wish to believe all the links you find can be debunked by just as many to the opposite side. Do we really need to go this route. What with the defunding and out right call for terminating the EPA there is little credibility that anything Bernie could say or do would make any difference. Should he rail against the GOP who has made this their little battle against the environmental issues that plague us?
Holding a Clinton accountable has been a governmental challenge that exhausts even their resources. Should Bernie expend as much on it to make you happy?
The truth is that we are a Democratic Socialist type of government and have been since recorded history of this country. Your attacks on Bernie and your reasoning's you wish to express about him are not germane to the topic that he wants to call it as it is and the lies we tell political rhetoric are its' victim. Not us as we just live in it unaware.
"Holding a Clinton accountable has been a governmental challenge that exhausts even their resources."
Challenging as it may be...actually holding Hillary accountable by word and deed is another thing. Something Bernie does not do even thought he implies that he does. That's BS.
The house of cards corrupt government is falling down.
Donald Trump says he will prosecute Hillary if he becomes president.
* http://www.infowars.com/trump-as-presid … e-clinton/
Judaical Watch is working on holding her accountable with some success.
A Judge ordered discovery to go forward...
* http://www.infowars.com/u-s-judge-order … il-system/
It can be done, but people need to speak up and stand for what is right. Not give up. This is still a democracy and we are still the people.
Donald Trump is the man!
And Bernie is not about the name calling and sludge that entertains us on the evening news. Bernie is for us and he has outlined it very clearly. Trump is all promises and pomp. He has outlined a typical GOP reduction in taxes to the rich and corporations to allow for the creation of more jobs. It is a GOP myth.
And Bernie supports higher taxes on the middle class to provide support without the need for jobs.
Of the two I'll take the myth - a changed world might allow it to work, however forlorn the hope may be. Socialism will not; it can only produce decay and deterioration in the long run.
What Bernie also proposes is a more robust economy based on the principle that when more money is in the hands of those who purchase the goods and services the rich cannot equal in volume, the economy will surge. Based on the stale economy and the myths of the GOP by cutting taxes to increase the economy I will choose a plan that works and not the myth. Look up the cities that have raised their minimum wages and see if it is not true.
Or maybe Kansas is not a true show of the myths fallibility. 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/upsho … .html?_r=0
"We all know to what degree racism remains alive in this country."
- Bernie Sanders
I have no idea to what extent racism is a problem in this country, do you, does anyone? Bernie is basically calling names ..."Americans are racist". Most likely the majority of Americans don't even think about skin color or race. The fact is if Bernie wants to call Americans racists he should be calling out the biggest race baiters we have ... Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakan, and Al Sharpton. Listen to those guys, they need mussels.
We have no idea to what degree racism remains alive in this country. But, Bernie says we do which is more B.S. How presidential is that? Sounds like Obama slurring and blaming America.
B.S. claims he does not understand why race is an issue, while ignoring the facts. Millions of $$$ per year are given to black activists with the intent to keep racism alive in America. Everyone does not know the extent. Bernie ignores that the "race industry" in America depends soully on creating more racial divisions. Is he that ignorant of the facts...I think not. Because, Bernie has been an activist for blacks. B.S. is basically baiting and recruiting!
Oh, he'll get some racists votes.
"I have no idea to what extent racism is a problem in this country, do you, does anyone?"
I remember a conversation I had with a black colleague a few years back and I thought it funny that you should mention this in your reply. He said white people think nothing is race related and black people think everything is race related. The proof is in the pudding when you see it raised in seemingly innocent situations and is ignored or marginalized as the "other" persons distortions.
I am white and I don't know what it is to wake up in the morning and see a black face staring back at me and all that means in my daily routine. But I live in the south and see many distort and marginalize many who think they understand and those that don't even care.
Because Bernie has been an activist in the past and did not even mention it until Hillary railed against his activism did I hear him begin to talk about it. This is not something he made up nor does he shy away from it. He is a man for the people and not the established elite.
Well, well, well...it looks like the Feds have flagged Bernie Sander's campaign.
"The letter states the report lists amounts of contributions, receipts, expenses and disbursements that "appear to be incorrect."
The letter also cites possible impermissible contributions that exceed the allowed limit per election cycle ($2,700 for individuals) along with donations that come from outside the United States and from unregistered political committees."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /80999298/
Interesting but the report also has an explanation written in the same article. Are there mistakes when Bernie has received so many contributions from individuals. The report also explains that.
"The Sanders campaign has until March 31 to answer the FEC's request.
Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs wrote in an email that such inquiries are "standard" and the campaign would address the FEC's questions. He noted that 85,391-page report covering the month of January listed over 125,000 separate contributions.
"Inevitably there are questions that the FEC staff will have," Briggs wrote Friday afternoon in an email.
Hillary Clinton, Sanders' opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, submitted a 18,642-page report for the same filing period. The FEC had not questioned the Clinton campaign's report as of Friday afternoon.
Briggs said the contributions in question involved about 200 donors who appeared to have gone over the contribution limit.
"This happens all the time in campaigns, and the FEC’s rules explicitly allow 60-days from receipt of an over-the-limit contribution for campaigns to remedy the excessive portion of the contribution," Briggs wrote.""
by Susie Lehto2 years ago
The Sanders’ campaign reportedly submitted the registration fees of $2,500 earlier this month well before the June 14 Democratic primary.But D.C. Democrats did not email the candidates' registration information to the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams22 months ago
According to yesterday's Election 2016 poll results, Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic primary. However, Bernie Sanders refuse to concede to Hillary Clinton. It is obvious that...
by Grace Marguerite Williams23 months ago
Bernie Sanders is still running & aiming to be our next President. What chances will he have against Hillary Clinton?
by Denise2 years ago
The best I can figure the Trump phenomenon, from listening to co-workers and reading comments on line is that the primary thing Trump has to offer is that he isn't Clinton, or Sanders, or Cruz or Rubio. The man has no...
by Susie Lehto18 months ago
His message speaks of an unfair system focusing on the elite and powerful. Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in...
by Credence22 years ago
Democrats/Progressives: Are you supporting Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders for President? And Why?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.