Bernie Sanders and his behavior at Walmart was unbelievable.

1. 72

   Abecedarianposted 5 years ago

   I was surprised at the fact that Bernie Sanders took on the tone of Trump by going after Walmart the way he did.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Wallmart is the earthly equivalent of heaven? Or the working classes touchstone of all that is good in America?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Regardless of whatever else people can and do say about Wal-Mart, just about everything is cheaper there. If you are a low income person like me, you do better spending your hard earned dollars there. You just get more for the little income you have.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, forget about the nation.
            Patriotic duty.
            
            Too hard. I know.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Speak English. Use complete sentences. Attempt to make sense when you wish to communicate with me.

               replyreport
2. 72

   Abecedarianposted 5 years ago

   Oh, don't get me wrong, I am in no way supporting Walmart, I just think that Bernie Sanders screwed up acting like Trump to gain some of his supporters. He could have talked about supporting and making the legal minimum wage $15 and raining in corporate greed, but to go after an individual by name and a company. He is not better than Trump going after AT&T in his tweets or Amazon.
   It's just hit to close to Trump's behavior.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Bernie Sanders:
      
      "I led the effort in the Senate to raise the federal minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour,"... "What we need,"  ... "is Walmart, the largest private employer in this country, to take a bold step forward and say all of their employees should live with dignity."
      
      Sanders has targeted a series of (many) major corporations over the wages they pay hourly employees:
      
      "Amazon raised its starting wage to $15 an hour in 2018 after coming under pressure from Sanders ..."
      
      Sanders "has also pressed Disney, which agreed to a deal with unions last year to raise pay for workers at California's Disneyland to $15 hourly this year and to ramp up to that figure by 2021 at Walt Disney World in Florida."
      
      FROM https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics … index.html
      
      (Walmart's minimum wage is currently $11 an hour.)

      replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   "The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)..."

   replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Who is he to shame and goad anyone ???? ever?
   
   NO ONE
   
   Trump is Trump.
   Bernie should be quiet. Trump should too.
   But these two men cannot be compared to each other.
   
   
   
   
   goad/ɡōd/
   
   verb
   1. provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.
   "he goaded her on to more daring revelations"
   synonyms: provoke, spur, prick, sting, prod, egg on, hound, badger, incite, rouse, stir, move, stimulate, motivate, excite, inflame, work/fire up, impel, pressure, pressurize, dragoon, prompt, induce, encourage, urge, inspire "the government was finally goaded into action"
   
   2. drive or urge (an animal) on with a goad.
   noun: goad; plural noun: goads
     1. a spiked stick used for driving cattle.
   synonyms prod, spiked stick, spike, staff, crook, pole, rod;

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Why should they be "quiet"?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Because it is up to these companies to do what they want. People work for them because they want to. They can always quit if they don't like it.
         
         He should be goading the government to raise minimum wage to what he thinks is appropriate. Not free market corporations.

         replyreport
5. 0

   RTalloniposted 5 years ago

   This man will be dismissed by a large segment of the population until he owns his double-standard, gives up his homes, expensive personal security that adversely affects the environment, high living in general to live like everyday Americans, and begins living out the socialistic policies he promotes to American citizens.
   
   His problem is that too many recognize he will never do it and that his plan is for everyone else to live under his leadership by standards he will not accept for himself.  Never having owned a business he only knows rhetoric about doing so. Never having to use socialized styled medical care, he only knows of having access to the best.
   
   Those who believe that more government will give answers for the needs people today face give him their ear, but like most people, he does not realize that win or lose, he is like the old pharaoh, he is but a breath, his time is done. He will leave this world one day and, sadly, his legacy will speak for itself, unless he makes the decision to learn what he needs to learn and admit his hypocrisy. 
   
   That he represents the left's agenda so well is very likely a boon to the 2020 elections for the right. It's too easy to see through his arrogant acrimony toward too many everyday people in the USA. That said, it's not over until it's over, and we've yet to see the outcome. On college campuses it's too easy to find young adults who do not know how to describe socialism or explain how it could work in this country. They may be so ignorant that they blindly undermine their own futures and turn the vote.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "It's too easy to see through his arrogant acrimony toward too many everyday people in the USA."
      
      I HOPE SO

      replyreport
   2. 98

      Sustainable Sueposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You mean he should give up the three mid-level homes he owns? And his one old car? You need to look up his history before making assumptions like this.
      
      As far as Secret Service detail is concerned, that started when presidential candidate Robert Kennedy was assassinated. All presidential candidates that meet certain criteria are now required to have security when they campaign. He could refuse it, I suppose, but who would want to if he's getting death threats?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         RTalloniposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         His small seasonal lake-front home, purchased for 1/2 million or so, will not be used by him often, but someone will be there protecting and maintaining it (or he's made a very bad investment). Perhaps it's a matter of who calls what a small or large home, and as it goes with real estate it's location, location, location, but either way trying to portray him as an everyday guy is a stretch.
         
         Nearly 1 million for his book deal in 2017 was not as much as the over 1 million in 2016, but both those are just starters on what he will earn off the books. And all that does not mention his other homes/incomes. True, he's well behind Warren's net worth of $7.8 million, but he's spending record amounts in travel alone for this campaign.
         
         We could set aside the travel costs and view it all from his own green theme. His own words condemn him, as well as in his lifestyle of owning 3 very nice homes, one in DC, a rather expensive place to live even if you have enough money to buy there. Between his own words contradicting his way of life, his desire that others live the way he says and accept that he lives as he wishes is the color of a socialist dictator.
         
         In this country it is no crime to be well off, to have many homes, to travel freely and expensively, or to have high quality security. Personally, I say congrats to those who earn it. They have that right. But when they say I can do it but you have to pay for my doing it, and by the way you can't do it, they have drawn the line in the sand for the everyday American (rich or poor).
         
         In this country he may show well with so many making themselves vulnerable to the lies of so-called modern socialism. Anything could happen and he could win. But if he does, it will not be a victory for this country.  He would still have access to the best in medical care, the best in personal security, the best in housing, travel, and more, so he's got nothing to lose.

         replyreport
6. 72

   Abecedarianposted 5 years ago

   Trump runs his companies just like most of those rich folk on the backs of hard working Americans. Trump doesn't pay his way, he screws everyone to get things for free and yet he goes around demeaning other Companies for their behavior.
   
   Bernie Sanders isn't exactly hurting for money. A lot of it also comes from his wife who is wealthy on her own. He says he makes money off his "books". Does he ask those companies that publish his books about the salaries of their employees or does he just sign on the line and takes the money and runs.
   
   Both are hypocrites, if they lose the election, neither one of them will do anything to help out the "starvation waged" employees.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Citizens help themselves and each other. They do not NEED the government to BABY them and coddle them and cater to their weaknesses and make life easy for them and take away self-motivation and pride of accomplishment and stuff like that.
      Gosh!!!

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Abecedarianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Well sadly enough that isn't true. I was raised that you work hard and provide and only ask for help when you have exhausted every means of doing it on your own.
         
         Today, people complain if the government doesn't fix it before they go out and try to do something for themselves.
         
         You are correct, they DO NOT NEED, the government to baby them, but the new generation is one of entitlement.  What have you done for me lately and I need it right now. But when it affects them negatively, then they talk about less government.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            They just don't know any better.
            
            If we tell them what's up, then they'll know. However, it seems we are too cool and hip and off smoking our THC sticks and stuff, pretending like everything will be fine to excellent if socialism takes over, accepting the notion that (actual) history never happened, allowing ourselves to rewrite the past for whatever currently hot agenda is being promoted by the proponents of fake information ...
            Well, we are ALLOWING them to repeat the mistakes of the past. Only, they'll think their mistakes will be the first time they've ever been made. How magnificent for them.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            RTalloniposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            There is good news on this front. Though to their own harm too many have an entitlement/welfare mindset, not all of the new generation thinks that way. There are many individual young people and organized groups who are quite conservative. For instance, the new generation of pro-life persons learned from the anger and frustration of the first generation and are responding more wisely to the anti-life movement by working to expose pro-abortion motivations and lies to vulnerable mothers and their own supporters. Other young conservative groups are working within the law to oppose other liberal agendas.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "... the new generation of pro-life persons learned from the anger and frustration of the first generation
               
               and are responding more wisely to the anti-life movement
               
               by working
               
               to expose pro-abortion motivations
               
               and lies
               
               to vulnerable mothers
               
               and their own supporters/(fellow conservatives?)."
               
                 ... and their supporters, who have compassion for life at conception and don't want to reject it by murdering it?  Who don't believe in murder no matter how small or at what stage of development the victim is?
               
               
               After all, every seed starts off very tiny and grows/develops into what it is destined to become, whether a Cosmos flower or a Redwood tree.
               
               And You Know its True.

               replyreport
            2. 72

               Abecedarianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Anti-life movement? That's like Trump saying the Queen had the best time she's every had because of me.
               If more people would mind their own business instead of everyone else's, we'd be in a much better place.
               I have lost life twice in my lifetime and the pain was unbearable. I can't say that I could chose one over the other because I have not been put in that spot, so how can we tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. God is our only judge, we life for him and in the end he will judge us. And to act sanctimoniously because one is Pro-life and call someone who doesn't follow in their believe Anti-life is the worst judgement of all.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  life is life. Their bodies have become a place for another soul. Have some respect. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Abecedarianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     life is life? So answer me this, if that is true, then why do those same people that think life is so precious, condone the treatment of life when it comes to immigrants. Because to pick which life is more important than the other is just hypocritical.

                     replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   What are we more entitled to? freedom or health care?
   
   What if one takes from the other?
   
   I would say freedom is the priority Right. If providing health care requires socialism to instate it and a LOSS of freedom is the result, how can universal health care be justified, Bernie?
   
   I am still fuming about being taxed/ fined for not having health insurance.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Abecedarianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, providing health care has nothing to do with 'socialism", that has to do with rhetoric from the right. The thing that people fail to understand is that the Affordable Care Act which the right likes to call Obama Care was amended by the Republicans 73 times, why to make it where people didn't like it or want it. The taxing I do believe came from the beginning and I didn't agree with it either, so instead of amending that issue, it was left in so the right would have a issue to fight the Dems on. Everything from Washington is political, it's never about us and what's best for us or our rights as I grow older, it becomes more and more obvious that it's the people with money that control everything.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That might be true in a socialistic society. But we are a democratic republic. How come you don't get what freedoms we have based on The Constitution of the United States? Because you never studied the Federalist Papers: the power is in the people, if you just read and comprehend this collection of writings which explain the basis and reasoning behind our constitution. We have laws to protect us and they are still being upheld as far as I know.
         
         Its the same as with religion: Its all in the interpretation.
         To believe that providing affordable health care for all is not socialistic is pure ignorance.
         Ignoring the truth of the matter.
         Why do that?

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Abecedarianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If it is up to interpretation as you say, then why call it ignorance? If you want to interpret it as socialistic that is just that, your interpretation. We have laws that get changed everyday by people with money so that it suits them and ignore the needs of the poor and the elderly.
            So when you say protect us, which us are you? The white America under Trump or the America that was created by immigrants, those that built the buildings you walk in, the churches you pray in, the food you get from the market?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Om ... peace.
               (Hope I don't get banned (again) for that little breather.)

               replyreport
      2. 91

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Forcing one to buy health care for someone else is not socialism?  How do YOU define the modern socialism of the entitled society?

         replyreport