Bernie Sanders is a Disaster for Democrats

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (324 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 17 months ago

    While Bernie has a loyal following, I think he's an absolute disaster for Democrats and about as sure a guarantee of four more years of Donald Trump as there is.

    If he's the nominee, Trump's campaign is going to tear him apart. And frankly, America is about individual achievements, accomplishments, prowess, pick yourself up by your bootstrap mentality; etc. Sure, there's an important community aspect to America, but it's still built on the individual and individual freedoms. Bernie is going to seem far too threatening to those ideals.

    Furthermore, Bernie does NOT have a history of achievement in the Senate. He was an independent who voted with the Democrats. He did very little. According to Hillary Clinton, and maybe this is sour grapes: nobody liked him and he did nothing.

    So even if he beat Trump, his future as a President seems bleak at best to me. Democrats will have no reason to work with him.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Russians and Republicans are spending a lot of money to make sure he gets the nomination. They think Trump can beat him more easily than other candidates.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image88
        Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        That doesn't even make sense.

        To beat a populist during a good economy you need a populist candidate.

        The only Democrat running that can muster enough support to challenge Trump is Bernie.

        This is in part because the DNC has destroyed anyone else in the offering that could inspire and motivate their base with new ideas and leadership.

        The DNC still clings to the idea that Biden is a viable candidate, from the outset he was sure to be defeated, he is entering into senility and it is obvious, this along with his other baggage makes him someone the majority of America will reject no matter what.

        Buttiegieg has his own issues, despite being the most polished contender in the race right now, with a clean political slate relatively speaking, in many ways like Obama being young, charismatic, and having little baggage... except that he is gay, and 40% of the country outright rejects that sexual orientation and lifestyle.  It would be interested to see that tested, but unlike skin pigmentation, I think sexual orientation would have far more impact in a national election even in today's 'enlightened' society.

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          People (mostly centrists) have been very reluctant to admit that Biden's dementia is a problem. I shared this in another comment but will share it here again for convenience's sake https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-tells- … soc_trk=fb

          Biden tells the crowd he's a candidate for the U.S. Senate and if they don't like him, they can "vote for the other Biden".

          Your comment about Pete being "in many ways like Obama" gave me a chuckle also as I just shared a link about him plagiarizing Obama's former speech writer.

          I also agree that Bernie is the DNC's best challenge to Trump (you'd think they'd notice after him winning the popular vote in the first three states).

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Everybody dances around the issue of age. Somewhere north of 80, you probably shouldn't be driving a car. We're going to elect an 80-year-old as President?

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Age is not necessarily indicative of ability to drive a car or lead. Your bias is snowing.

              1. IslandBites profile image89
                IslandBitesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                While I agree, his age plus the fact that he just had a heart attacks a few weeks ago should be a concern. IF people decide to vote for him, his VP selection should be an important issue. Also, the possible need of a new candidate for the 2024 election.

                Maybe that will be Pete's time.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I agree that all factors should be considered when making a decision on who to vote for. Those factors should be based on the individual, though, not some generalizations based on age.

              2. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                This is one of those taboo topics, but what the hell...

                If you were choosing somebody to run a marathon, would you choose an 80-year-old? Sure, some 80-year-olds are in better shape than some 50-year-olds, but mostly not. And it does depend on the specific person.

                But generally speaking, at some point, age does factor into a number of critical skills and generally, people's cognitive abilities diminish with age. People seem to think Biden is clearly suffering from age-related issues and the odds that Bernie's skills diminish severely while in office are pretty high.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps, but Trump never had any real cognitive ability from the beginning. I wondered about Ronald Reagan during his second term whether he was all there.

                  This is a crucial election and a crucial time. I am sticking with Bernie, but hope that his running mate is a bit younger and yet remain ideologically true to Bernie's ideas.

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    True. Would I take an intelligent 80-year-old over a stupid 50-year-old? Every day. However, this goes to the inability of Democrats to recognize viable candidates and put people forward who have appeal in a general election. Age is a big factor.

                    That said, so is sex and sexual orientation, neither of which I care about much but, as some have pointed out, tend to be non-starters with many folks.

                    So what I am saying is that I am biased when it comes to age and prefer a younger candidate. Bernie against Trump? Well, that's an easy choice.

            2. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Being concerned about having an older president and having one that doesn't know what location he is in or what office he is running for (I won't even make at attempt at the meaning of something like "the other Biden) is another thing altogether. Keep in mind Trump isn't much younger and has had at least one sudden visit to the hospital. I'm voting for the best person for the job, 80 or otherwise. Bernie seems more clear headed than most people much younger, in my opinion. I did enjoy the Dick Van Dyke endorsement as well where he says it would be nice to have a young guy like Bernie in office (Dick is 94).

        2. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, I really wish you'd stop using the term "gay lifestyle". There's no such thing. Do you choose the "heterosexual lifestyle"? A person's true colors come through when they use such terms.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image88
            Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I prefer you use the term 'straight lifestyle'.

            Please do tell about my "true colors", I'd love to hear more.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Lifestyle implies choice. Gay folks don't choose to be gay. The implication that being gay is a choice is a way to demean people. Choosing a "swinging lifestyle" is a choice. You can demean swingers for their choices if you like.

    2. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I agree with most of your comment. I too can just imagine the force of counter-ads using all the available clips of Sanders' past statements and activities.

      He will be solidly painted as a communist at worst and a socialist at best. Unfortunately for Bernie, I think his current platforms and political past will make those attacks successful.

      But, I wonder about the thought that Democrats would have no reason to work with him. I can imagine Democrats being more than willing to work with him for moderate versions of his extreme ideas.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "But, I wonder about the thought that Democrats would have no reason to work with him. I can imagine Democrats being more than willing to work with him for moderate versions of his extreme ideas"

        Well said, and is an accurate assessment of my position on Sanders candidacy.

        Because, outside of Warren, all the other candidates have the smell of Trump on them, a stench of some over others. Like I said, this will all go to prove that America is fundamentally a "Trump" country. And we will all deserve that which we all ultimately choose.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          But I don't think the Republicans will work with him, and it will take their cooperation to get any of his ideas passed.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            It will take both the Left and the Right to pass his programs, Doris. It's one reason I'm not gonna panic if he wins the nomination.

            Anyone is better than the wannabe king.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Sanders "60 Minutes" interview basically shows what a disaster he would be. Offering up free stuff with no idea how to pay for it is not a recipe for good government. And also, he'll never get that stuff passed through Congress, so I'm not sure what he plans to do.

          2. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            MsB, what else is new? The Republicans did not work with Obama either. So, unless there is only Republicans on the other side of the isle, thinking that they will be reasonable is not to be expected.

          3. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I was going to mention that to Cred, but you beat me to it, plus, the comment was about Democrats working with him.

            GA

            1. MizBejabbers profile image91
              MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I went back and reread the comment, and yes, it was, but I still think they would need Republican support to get Bernie's stuff passed -- unless there is a Democrat majority in this election. Which I don't forsee.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Neither do I. I even think that if Bernie is the nominee the Democrats may lose a few seats in both the House and the Senate.

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Biden may yet tell the tale, Gus. Saturday may be the day...

    3. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I agree that Bernie Sanders is a disaster for the Democrat party.  That is why so many Republicans in open primaries are voting for him.  They know President Donald Trump has the party's nomination, so it's not important to vote for him and voting or Bernie Sanders will do two things.

      1. It will make people believe he has many more followers than he actually does.
      2. Bernie Sanders nomination will turn off many people of main stream America to the Democrat Party.  So, for Republicans who are voting for Bernie Sanders in open primaries, it is the way to go. 

      In a closed primary, Democrats only vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans.  In an open primary, you can vote for the other party's primary candidate.  It is a progressive idea that is being used in ways I'm sure were not intended.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I'm sure you're right about that. I live in a closed primary state and didn't realize that there are open primary states. And I agree that Bernie is a disaster for Democrats. He isn't even a democrat.

    4. Eastward profile image90
      Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I certainly disagree with this one, but don't take my word for it (take Keith Spencer's analysis of renowned economist Thomas Piketty):

      "the Democratic Party that is wantonly ignoring mounds of social science data that suggests that promoting centrist candidates is a bad, losing strategy when it comes to winning elections. As the Democratic establishment and its pundit class starts to line up behind the centrist nominees for president — like Mike Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg — the party's head-in-the-sand attitude is especially troubling."

      https://www.salon.com/2019/06/02/there- … candidate/

      There is also the fact that Biden's dementia continues to be exacerbated by the rigors of the campaign trail:

      https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-tells- … soc_trk=fb

      And then there's Pete:

      https://www.indy100.com/article/pete-bu … on-9354931

      The Democratic party is damn lucky to have Bernie Sanders.

    5. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      We very rarely agree. However, this comment in "my opinion" is pretty spot on.

      If he did win I believe it would be four years of nothing getting done, and possibly a disaster for the stock market. But, four years would fly by, and we will once again be looking for something new...

    6. Misfit Chick profile image82
      Misfit Chickposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Relax, Bernie is just another Trump trying to hijack a major political party - like Trump did last time, and Obama did the Dem party before him.

      I think its the funniest thing! (Alot funnier than I thought it would be, LoL!) Squirm, squirm - both the Dems AND the Repugs are squirming, and they should be. Neither of them has ANY idea where the majority of the American people ACTUALLY stand on most subjects - although they both ignorantly and defiantly claim that the majority is on THEIR side.

      They are both so damn clueless, its ridiculous.
      -------------------------

      REMINDER of RECENT HISTORY:

      This is the end of an era, and those don't usually happen peacefully. It didn't start with Trump, it started with Obama - and continues. I know you've all forgotten about all the Dem infighting when Obama was elected. The Dems were as MAD as the GOP - just like so many GOPers were/are mad about Trump being elected under their banner.

      One of the biggest distortions within the Republican party is that the Dems are a bunch of scary liberal communists. But, the majority of liberals that T-fans fear so much actually exist within all the other parties, not one of the two biggies - until recently. Apparently, they are figuring out that they can't win from a 3rd party political platform, so they are doing the only thing they CAN do to win: hijack one of the main parties.

      Its been a long time since a party FAVORITE - on either side - has gotten to be potus. Maybe Obama's 2nd term could be counted as him being 'the favorite' of the Dem party - but by then, he had learned his lessons and had become a 'good boy', towing the line like he was supposed to.
      -----------------------

      BERNIE IS A TOUGH OLD GOAT

      I live in Seattle where MANY Bernie supporters are located - so I have been exposed to his 'style' beyond the TV screen. Bernie's supporters are not that much different than Trump supporters, actually. They DON'T CARE that so many people don't like them, NOR do they care about any judgments against them. (Like, they are just a bunch of young, stupid kids.) AND they can be just as divisive and LOUD as T-fans.

      Make no mistake, Bernie IS perfectly capable of holding his own against Trump in the 'bellowing' department. He's got a sharp mouth like Trump, except he isn't quite as '*ssholey' about the way he says stuff - cuz it doesn't impress him or his supporters like Trump's *ssholiness excites his supporters, LoL!

      Bernie is actually pretty good at pushing back, and can get quite vicious if he has to. He hasn't been a thorn in the Dem party this long - and still kicking - for no good reason.

      However, it is true that Bernie tends to shy away from name-calling, obvious lies and false accusations - and relies more on 'educated' arguments that are much more directed at a person's party or POLICIES than personal insults - although he sometimes gets in both, when/where applicable. wink

      Bernie IS capable of being non-PC. He just doesn't need to rely on it as a hook for his audience. Also, Bernie knows his supporters WELL; and he knows they ARE backing him 100%. (Really, they are as loyal as T-fans.)

      Because of that, Bernie isn't afraid of either the Dems or the GOP - and that is one big damn PLUS in his favor.
      --------------------------------------

      WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF BERNIE GETS the DEM NOMINATION

      This election, because of Trump's divisive behavior - more people than EVER are going to come out and vote; and because of that one reason, it STILL won't be a good indicator of where the majority stands on any subject - because a BUNCH of those people will be voting for Bernie JUST because he isn't Trump.

      All Trump has to do is keep talking the way he does to get Bernie elected. If he'd shut up NOW (except for maybe a sincere-sounding apology or two), figure out how to be potus for ALL Americans instead of just his unreasonable, raging fans - he'd have a much better shot.

      But, this 'first' time around, anyway - we voters probably don't have to worry about Bernie's 'socialist' policies coming to fruition. As the GOP learned with Obamacare - that is easier said than done. You need a majority in both the House and the Senate in order to do something like that.

      Bernie won't have a majority - even IF he wins potus AND the House & Senate both fall to the Dems. (Which is a possibility.) Why? Because AGAIN, despite what Fox shoves down the throats of their brainwashed audience - most Dems are NOT liberals.

      I am not a Dem nor a liberal - and, I don't want any of Bernie's extreme leftie goofball policies, anymore than I want the extreme right's bs for my country - but ya darn TOOTIN I'll be voting for Bernie if he ends up getting the Dem nomination.

      Bernie & Trump would be the funnest ride to election day; and I, for one, just keep thinking - BRING IT ON, LoL! There is no one else on the Dem stage who would bring more humiliation to Trump and his fandom than Bernie - either before or after an election. And frankly, you ALL deserve it.

      BOTH PARTIES CRYING

      Another thing I like about the idea of Bernie being elected... Not only would it be heartbreaking for the GOP; but it would also humiliate the Dem party who is JUST AS CLUELESS when it comes to 'we the people'. All they care about is their own power (just like the GOP).

      Passionate party constituents (on both sides) also still have a lot to learn. For one thing, they are ALL obviously still trying to figure out where/how/why their strings can be so easily & harshly pulled.

      Both parties still have lessons to learn before we can move into less divisive, more cooperative & productive 'out of the box' policies that actually work for our entire country - that are NEITHER 100% conservative NOR liberal extremist views - but rather: brilliant, common sense policies that are unique to this MOST amazing place on Earth.


      https://hubstatic.com/14867942.jpg


      https://hubstatic.com/14867943.jpg

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        This is an excellent take on what's going on IMO. As to the final statement:

        "Both parties still have lessons to learn before we can move into less divisive, more cooperative & productive 'out of the box' policies that actually work for our entire country - that are NEITHER 100% conservative NOR liberal extremist views - but rather: brilliant, common sense policies that are unique to this MOST amazing place on Earth."

        It certainly will not be easy! The political game, at this point, seems to be to make ANY policy that is not how we currently do things seem top be way outside the norm. This is true to how Dems react to Republican policies and vice versa. How do we know what is not a 100% liberal or 100% conservative policy, especially when the very terms "liberal" and conservative" are man made constructs.

        A policy is 100% liberal or conservative if that's the narrative that wins over. There really is no fact test that a policy can undergo to prove that it's not.

  2. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 17 months ago

    If Bernie had no chance why is he wiping the floor with his opponents? Hillary's comment was sour grapes. Why any of you listen to her mealy mouthed nasty comments about others is a mystery.

    And of course the democrats won't work with him any more than they worked with Trump.  I don't know whether you've noticed,or not, but the powers that be in the democratic party walked away from listening to the American people long ago and have no interest in working with anyone who does. They are simply drunk with the desire for power.

    Bernie represents exactly what Trump did. A growing populace thoroughly disgusted with politics as usual. We may disagree with what the solution is but we all agree with what the problem is.

    1. MizBejabbers profile image91
      MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Because his supporters are young, brash, inexperienced voters who are coming of age just in time to see the the effects of Trump's policies. They are afraid of not having a climate left in which they and their families can survive. They are also struggling under mountains of debt, mainly student loans, which leave them unable to buy homes and live the good life they saw their parents live. They blindly think the government will give it to them. They don't realize that if Bernie's socialist policies were put into effect, it would actually increase the financial pressure on them, too, because they would have less take-home pay.
      I don't believe that Bernie stands a chance of beating Trump and their efforts are just going to ensure a Trump victory. However, in the event that he did become president, I don't think he could get his policies through Congress. I think that would be our only saving grace of electing him. He comes across as an angry old man, and I'm not sure how he would fare at foreign policy. Would our "former" allies respect him? I don't know, but I think Obama appeared to our enemies as soft, so maybe they would respect an angry old man. I doubt if we will have to wait and see because I don't think Bernie can trump Trump.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image88
        Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I think that is a smaller portion of the population than you believe, having teenage boys as well as being around a variety of different people daily, its not a topic that ever comes up, so its not one which people are voting.

        Adults always talk about health insurance, about wages,  about daily events and struggles... no one talks about climate change, not the kids, not the adults.  Its an issue for a minor amount of Americans.



        This too is a minority of Americans, less than 1 million I believe, not a lot in a country of over 320 million.  It is being way overhyped as a major issue, when it is not affecting a great many Americans.

        This is just one more example of how the Democrats are pushing issues that are out of touch with the majority of America.



        Anyone that supports Bernie and believes in more free stuff and more government control is likely either one of the 40% of Americans dependant on Government support today, or a true believer in socialism. communism, and anti-capitalism.

        He has an excellent chance of defeating Trump, if he can convince the population dependant on the government to survive that he is critical to their interests in maintaining what they get now, and incentivizing them by promising them more.

        You take that substantial voting block, and add in the hard-core supporters of socialism, communism, anti-westernism and you have a pathway to the Presidency.

        one that is far more likely to be achieved than the likes of Biden could hope for.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Spoken like a true "bury-head-in-the-sand" Trump supporter. For every young person struggling with student debt, there probably is another who has decided not to go to college and struggle through life, especially since so many of the trade schools they might have attended were turned into universities during the 1990s and early 2000s.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            And for every one struggling with massive student debt there are two more that worked their way through college, used the plethora of grants and scholarships, perhaps using the GI bill, and came out of the process relatively unscathed.

            It is a total myth that one must run up 50,000 dollars or more in college debt to get an education.

            1. IslandBites profile image89
              IslandBitesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              "for every one,... there are two"

              2017 - May 2018

              Over half of young adults who went to college took on some debt, including student loans, for their education. Repayment of this debt can be challenging.

              Acquired debt for own education, including repaid (by age and highest degree completed)
              https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/images/SHED_2018_Fig_31.svg

              The typical amount of education debt in 2017 among those with any outstanding was between $20,000 and $25,000.

              2018 - May 2019

              Fifty-four percent of young adults who went to college took on some debt, including student loans, for their education.

              Acquired debt for own education, including repaid (by age and highest degree completed)
              https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/images/SHED2019_Fig29.svg

              The typical amount of education debt in 2018 among those with any outstanding was between $20,000 and $24,999.

              Federal Reserve

          2. Ken Burgess profile image88
            Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this



            Exactly which portion of that response was "bury-head-in-the-sand"?



            For every 1 person struggling with student debt...
            there is another 1 person who decided not to go to college and struggle through life...

            So... essentially 2 million Americans then?

            The ones that chose to burden themselves with student debt with no idea how to pay it off, mostly because they were clueless, got some irrelevant degree, and have no real job opportunities that pay well enough to handle that debt...

            And for each of them there is a clueless person who gave up and decided not to try at all... and this is relevant why?

            Life isn't easy, Life isn't fair... in America you have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, some come from nothing and make themselves into millionaires, and some come from a family worth millions, and are failures at life despite having every advantage.

            No amount of free college is going to change that.  But trying to make everything free for everybody just might ruin the system that has allowed the entire world to prosper and become more civilized, enlightened, and capable of living in extreme comfort compared to any other age in human history.

            As for Trade schools there are more trade schools and colleges around than at any time in history, not that facts matter to your out of touch view point.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Who paid for your education, Ken? Uncle Sam?

    2. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      How do you know Hillary's comments were sour grapes? She has no skin in the game, so is likely speaking the truth.

    3. Eastward profile image90
      Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      ^This. People can try to downplay Bernie, but are we forgetting that he just made history by being the first candidate (Democrat or Republican) to win the popular vote in the first three early voting states? He has the most delegates. He is raising the most money (not including Bloomberg and Steyer raising their own money here).

      Completely agree that Hillary Clinton speaking negatively is extremely petty and disgusting after he campaigned for her. It shows her true character and as much as I oppose Trump, it makes it clear how poor of a choice she was as well.

      "And of course the democrats won't work with him any more than they worked with Trump.  I don't know whether you've noticed,or not, but the powers that be in the democratic party walked away from listening to the American people long ago and have no interest in working with anyone who does. They are simply drunk with the desire for power."

      ^^^ Very much this. I think Sanders has a better chance at saving the party than he does destroying it. Younger people aren't buying the playing-house style of politics pretending to tinker a little in ways that maybe will help the poor and working class to a small degree (or maybe not, but who will do anything about it?). Sanders stands for the end of the facade and the rise of substance. No more pretending to care about healthcare. It's time for action. No more wars to please defense contractors. No more policing and prisons for profit. And so on and so forth. He's about leaving a legacy for the children and grandchildren rather than a toxic dystopia ruled over by robber barons.

      "Bernie represents exactly what Trump did. A growing populace thoroughly disgusted with politics as usual. We may disagree with what the solution is but we all agree with what the problem is."

      I agree once again. Trump was the wildcard people gambled on because of their disgust with the broken political system. He went all-in for billionaires. I think this time people are willing to take a chance at change with Sanders, hoping he'll go all in for the people and at least bring us somewhat back to a grounded center.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "^ Very much this. I think Sanders has a better chance at saving the party than he does destroying it. Younger people aren't buying the playing-house style of politics pretending to tinker a little in ways that maybe will help the poor and working class to a small degree (or maybe not, but who will do anything about it?). Sanders stands for the end of the facade and the rise of substance. No more pretending to care about healthcare. It's time for action. No more wars to please defense contractors. No more policing and prisons for profit. And so on and so forth. He's about leaving a legacy for the children and grandchildren rather than a toxic dystopia ruled over by robber barons."


        Eastward, this is poetry to my ears. My sentiments exactly.

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          We're doing just fine, Credence. Stay optimistic despite all the negativity and cast your vote for what you believe in. We can't expect the billionaires paying millionaires on major networks to sing the praises of Bernie Sanders. We can't expect Establishment Democrats that have found ways to exploit the system to enrich themselves to sing his praises either. He is the front-runner and I'm confident he can go up against Donald Trump.

          Not looking bad at all considering he's not even the nominee yet:
          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -6250.html

  3. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 17 months ago

    I am saddened by what I see as the continuing gullibility of the rank and file democrats who continue to parrot stupid and consistently debunked conspiracy theories.

    It sounds like a Chicken Little Paul Revere hybrid. No wonder Yang got no traction. He choose the wrong party for his Make America Think Again initiative.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Which debunked conspiracy theories are you referencing?

      1. profile image0
        promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Oh, she's aiming a silly insult at my post and trying to claim that Russia doesn't interfere in our elections.

        She knows something that the CIA, FBI and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee don't know.

        Deny, deny, deny.

        And yet Russian help for Sanders is all over the news.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 835049002/

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          It's what all Trump enablers do, Scott. Just like their role model in the WH.

      2. Live to Learn profile image79
        Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Randy if you can't point to one thing that happened dueto internet trolls then claiming 'Russian interference' is no different from complaining about foreigners posting opinions here on American politics.

        As I said, the shtick wore thin last time around. Only a fool would fall for the same attempt by the democrats to manipulate their opinion twice.

        Or, is it three times now? Trump twice. Bernie once.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Is that an "I can't," or "don't want to," LTL? You brought up the "debunked conspiracies," didn't you?

    2. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Oh, Jesus, now you're going to gaslight us on conspiracy theories? Your comments sound increasingly irrelevant and like you're listening to too much Alex Jones. From the party that brought us Pizzagate and "Sandy Hook Was a Hoax". I mean, really, the Democrats are the conspiracy theorists now?

  4. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 17 months ago

    Here is an illustration of what the Democrats will have to try to turn into moderate programs if Sanders wins"

    "The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders’s three most ambitious proposals. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by “somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.” He pledges to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition—plus $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.

    This unprecedented outlay would more than double the size of the federal government. Over the next decade, Washington is already projected to spend $60 trillion, and state and local governments will spend another $29.7 trillion from non-federal sources. Adding Sanders’s $97.5 trillion—and then subtracting the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All—would raise the total cost of government to $184 trillion, or 70 percent of the projected GDP over ten years"

    Source: city-journal.org "The Unaffordable Candidate"

    Caveat: I know the source is sponsored by the Manhatten Institute - a neoconservative think tank, but the information in the article is linked to credible sources.

    Maybe Onusonus' meme wasn't so off-base.

    https://hubstatic.com/14895580.jpg

    I would bet that every one of those program costs will be prime-time Republican ads - followed by clips of Bernie's historical Socialism statements.

    It's going to be bloody.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Indeed, Bernie nearly has as many pro-Russian statements as Trump has.

    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      And which of those programs  do you think would be fully, or even partially, approved by Congress?

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        That was the point of the thread, wasn't it,  ". . . a disaster for Democrats"?

        Will the back-pedaling and 'more moderate' versions have to start during the General campaign or do you think the public will accept them whole and the Democrats can wait until after the election?

        GA

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Maybe its just me, but I look at a candidates proposals as simply a reflection of their priorities rather than a definite prediction of what will happen after they are elected. Almost none of a candidates' proposals will be enacted by Congress as proposed. The question for me is, do they fight for the things i care about and how effective will they be? Any of the Democrats except Bloomberg mostly reflect my values. I simply want forward movement, and a return to decency, empathy, competence and truth. I suspect many people feel the same.

          As for back-pedaling during the General Election, I doubt Bernie will do that. Part of his appeal is that he is genuine in his beliefs.

          His policies might horrify you, but many of us have been nonstop horriified for years now and Bernie would be a welcome relief from that disgusting, lying POS..

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks to coronavirus, Bernie is now a shoo-in as President.

            When people are dying from it all over the U.S. by election time, voters will favor a pro-health-care candidate over an anti-health-care candidate.

            More to the point, Trump cut the budgets to the CDC and National Institutes for Health to pay for his tax cuts.

            Which means Bernie will easily beat Trump.

            1. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Interesting point, Promisem. I haven't seen this one argued until now. It's sad that it takes a tragedy for enough people to realize the important of healthcare (not to mention the CDC and National Institutes for Health), but if Bernie becomes president, hopefully prioritizing health will no longer be an issue.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Oh, it's been argued for years - without free medical care people are "dying all over the country" and have been.  Bodies on every sidewalk, don't you know?

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  If one person dies due to lack of healthcare, it's unacceptable to me. It's ridiculous that it would happen in a country with our resources.

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Eastward, the Trump bullies on here are really dumping on you lately.

                    Maybe they have a problem with Buddhists.  wink

                2. profile image0
                  promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Where did Eastward or I say anything about free medical care?

                  Are you unaware that coronavirus is killing people? Or that Trump is cutting the CDC budget?

              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, I'm seeing many posts elsewhere about it.

                Also complaints about Trump saying coronavirus is contained, will be gone by April and other dumb comments.

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Now I'm seeing a lot about it on Twitter and also the containment claims by our stable genius.

                  Also, we don't have to worry about funding healthcare anymore. I heard Mexico will pay for it wink

            2. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this
              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Sure. But that's not the CDC and NIH budget cuts. It's also chump change compared to what Trump wants to cut.

                https://time.com/5177802/cdc-budget-cut … s-disease/

                https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ … -cuts-2020

                Regardless, my major point is about voter perceptions of a pro-health-care candidate in Sanders versus an anti-health-care candidate in Trump.

                Let's not forget that Trump also wants to kill Obamacare.

              2. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I'll offer one other piece of background information that may interest you.

                "In May 2018, Trump ordered the NSC’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency.

                "The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced.

                "The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10."

                https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/co … -response/

            3. IslandBites profile image89
              IslandBitesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I think you could be right. SMH

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZJNVaJwhHk

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Thanks, IB. In fact, Sanders and the other Dem candidates started on that approach last night.

                https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sande … 2020-02-25

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I think you are looking at my comments as a knock on Sanders, rather than a discussion of the topic of the thread,  ". . . a disaster for Democrats."

            My point is that the $97 Trillion dollar costs will be a major focus of the campaign ads against Sanders. As will all the clips of his Socialistic statements and praise of leaders like Castro.

            Do you disagree with that? How will the Democrats fight back against those ads?

            Will they try to deny the truth of the costs? That could be dangerous ground because those costs estimates are based on non-partisan evaluations.

            Will they try to mitigate the scope or feasibility, (your thought about what could get passed by Congress), of his programs, like; "Well yeah, Bernie is promising this or that free, but what he really means is . . . "

            Or, do you really believe that those anti-Bernie ads won't ring true with any thinking voter?

            O f course, Bernie won't backpedal, but, the point isn't how his policies horrify me, it is how they will probably horrify thinking voters when the anti-Sanders ads put them in their face.

            Your thoughts about a "disgusting, lying POS" isn't going to mean beans to non-Sanders base supporters when they see the reality of his program costs.

            Come on PrettyPanther. Do you really think an anti-Sanders ad promoting his $97 Trillion dollar price tag and his praise of Castro won't get the attention of most sensible voters?

            So, back to the original question; how will the Democrats deal with this disaster?

            Don't beat me up for making the point, unless you feel it isn't a valid one. Do you not think what I described will happen? Do you think Independent voters will have your perspective of looking at his priorities instead of his proposed programs?

            GA

            1. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I'll just drop the link here to the updated cost estimates and payment options from Bernie's website: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-do … jor-plans/

              Here's the very bare bones breakdown (with more info and links available on his website):

              What our current system costs over the next decade:

              Over the next ten years, national health expenditures are projected to total approximately $52 trillion if we keep our current dysfunctional system.

              How much we will save:

              "According to the Yale study and others, Medicare for All will save approximately $5 trillion over that same time period.

              $52 trillion - $5 trillion = $47 trillion total

              How we pay for it:

              Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion.

              The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion

              $30 trillion  + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total"

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I followed your link Eastward. The least I can offer is that your counter-point figures come from Bernie Sanders. What else should be expected? If it were a Conservative offering such a link they would be ridiculed for posting biased sources.

                Almost all non-partisan evaluations I have seen put the best-case scenario, giving him the benefit of the doubt concerning his funding sources, (for instance; accepting his "wealth tax" figure is really giving him the benefit of the doubt—most non-partisan sources say his projection is off by at least half), at a minimum deficit of $37 Trillion.

                And I think that is a story in itself—to even reach that $37 trillion deficit will require $60 trillion in new taxes. How do you think that will go over with taxpayers that actually pay taxes instead of getting refunds?

                GA

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I see your point, GA. I started with the link directly from Bernie's site because a common criticism I've seen is that he doesn't explain how he pays for his proposals (disagreeing on the numbers and accusing him of not having a plan are quite different things).

                  Here is a link that goes more into the details of the Yale study Bernie is citing for his plan https://www.wonkette.com/medicare-for-a … ds-at-yale

                  If you have a good link of a non-partisan evaluation, I'd be interested to take a look as well.

                  Of course nobody is going to do cartwheels over additional taxes, but I think if we are going to move forward as a society, we can't exactly rule out the idea either (considering the overall benefits). I find the tax brackets to be modest and mostly focused on those with extreme wealth https://bernietax.com/#0;0;s Of course, that's just my perspective.

              2. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I want to hear what you are going to cut on a local, state and federal level.  Law enforcement? That will increase crime.  Military?  That will leave us vulnerable to our enemies.  Social programs? This could lead to riots in the street. So, it's easy to say cut government budgets, it's another things to be oblivious to its effects.  Seems more than a little foolish.

                So, again, Sanders and his followers need to take some lessons in economic reality.

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I get it, Sanders supporters are foolish and the followers of the overgrown man-baby with the vocabulary of a toilet stall are super stable geniuses. How's the stock market doing today btw since that was the closest thing anyone seems to have had for an argument to enable Trump?

                  Law enforcement in the United States is out of control. The very people that are supposed to protect citizens are killing them at a greater rate than the terrorists that we're supposed to be pissing our pants about every god-damned minute of the day (almost as if all the fear-mongering is just to keep us under the thumb of the elites). And all that BS is expensive (so yes, I'm sure we can find all kinds ways to cut the funds when it comes to the boots (guns and armored vehicles):

                  On misconduct lawsuits
                  https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/20 … -millions/

                  Police killings:
                  https://killedbypolice.net/

                  Actual risks of terrorism to Americans
                  https://www.businessinsider.com/death-r … 017-1?op=1

                  Not to mention the disgusting militarization of the police that makes us our country look like a fascist dystopia (I've lived under military marital law that looked like Disneyland in comparison).
                  https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ … one-i.html

                  Military. Yes, it does make sense to have a strong military. Does it makes sense that we have these endless conflicts with no real evidence or justification just so politicians have a convenient excuse to transfer taxpayer money to defense contractors and oil companies (and convert some brown children in a country they know little to nothing about into skeletons with a nice drone attack or two)?  No. I think we can cut plenty from the military as well.

                  A bit on Coward Syndrome and drone pilots resigning
                  https://www.thenation.com/article/archi … d-numbers/

                  On the Iraq War
                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

                  Social programs, yes, Bernie Sanders is going to come for your Medicare and Social Security. His whole career has been a cloak and dagger operation to sneak up on us and just when we thought we had a president that gave a rat's ass about non-billionaires, BAM! There go all your benefits.

                  But really, here are some links on Medicare for All savings:

                  A Koch supported project (of all things)
                  https://www.thenation.com/article/archi … ves-money/

                  And those mouth-breathers over at Yale
                  https://www.nationofchange.org/2020/02/ … ry-deaths/

                  I'll admit I'm sick of all the fear-mongering and the oppressive government/corporate Establishment telling us that sh*t is actually chocolate pudding. No spoon for me, thanks.

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Well said. Trump supporters say they want an anti-establishment candidate. What is Trump doing that is anti-establishment other than calling people in government and the military names and making speeches that no one can even decipher what the hell they mean. I read a transcript of his corona virus talk. What the???

                    Anyone who threatens the financial order is labeled as misinformed. I would stick to that line if I were a billionaire. Meanwhile, the rest of us should be fighting for things like guaranteed health insurance.

                    Why do people want their employer to hold their health in their hands anyway? No one should have to say "Well I'd get another job but my health coverage would change and I might not be able to see my doctor."

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image88
                    Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    The stock market is making heavy 'corrections' right now, as it did at the end of 2018.  This is 'normal'.  This is being facilitated by what is going on in China, and it may be that this is China withdrawing a goodly amount of the hundreds of billions it has invested into our stock market.

                    I have stated (if not here than elsewhere) that this is certain to happen, it was forecast years ago, international money flowed into the US Stock Market as a safe haven, and then China poured in another half trillion since 2018 just so it can pull it out prior to the election in 2020.  They want Trump out of office more than any Democrat does.

                    Trump has a great many flaws, but his actions, from NAFTA to taking on China, has been good for the American workers.

                    Yes the recovery began before Trump was elected, but his actions have extended it, and allowed a period of expansion and wage increase, you can argue as to its size or how much of it is his doing... but while the rest of the world has stagnated or regressed, America has been the 'land of plenty' for more Americans than ever before in the past few years.

                    Trust me, those Americans who are not doing well now, will be doing far worse when this period of economic boom is over, and the pendulum swings the other way... whether that happens when Bernie is elected in 2020 or someone else is elected in 2024... the economic turn will occur.

            2. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I'm going to keep my answer short. I don't think most voters choose a president on just the facts. Most choose the one who they feel understands them. That is how Trump won. That is how Obana won.

              So, the primaty question is, will people prefer Bernie's authentic populism or Trump's phony populism?

              Those ads you talk about, they're just like ads Repiblicans always run against Democrats, whether true or not. Obama was a socialist Muslim terrorist who waned to kill your grandma, remember?

              I think you truly believe "sensible" voters won't vote for Bernie, but look who "sensible" voters elected last time.

              1. Eastward profile image90
                Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Just a small correction, if I may. Obama was a Kenyan socialist Muslim terrorist posing as an American citizen that wanted to kill granny wink

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I stand corrected. big_smile
                  And let's not forget, "sensible" voters elected a reality TV star who spent years touting birtherism.

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this
              2. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                "I think you truly believe "sensible" voters won't vote for Bernie, but look who "sensible" voters elected last time."

                Ouch!

                GA

  5. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 17 months ago

    Those ads you talk about, they're just like ads Repiblicans always run against Democrats, whether true or not. Obama was a socialist Muslim terrorist who waned to kill your grandma, remember?

    I think you truly believe "sensible" voters won't vote for Bernie, but look who "sensible" voters elected last time.
    -----------------

    Priceless.......

    I am fast reaching the point where I no longer really care what conservatives think, they in this current political climate will always be adversaries and you waste time speaking to any of them about "moderation".

    There will be perilous times ahead.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image88
      Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Ahhhh... now we are getting to the core of your real beliefs Credence.

      The truth shall set you free!

      You know, like that Bernie campaign staff organizer that was caught speaking his real beliefs:

      A campaign organizer for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in a conversation caught on tape by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, Kyle Jurek said the country will have to "spend billions" on re-education for people.

      "Do you even think that some of these MAGA people could be re-educated?" an undercover reporter asked.

      "I mean, we gotta try," Jurek answered. "That's kind of what Bernie's f***ing like, 'Hey, free education for everybody!' because we're going to have to teach you to not be a f***ing Nazi."

      "If Bernie doesn't get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC convention, f***ing Milwaukee will burn," Jurek warned. "It'll start in Milwaukee and then when the police push back on that, other cities will just f***ing (blow up sound)."

      "The cops are going be the ones that are getting f***ing beating in Milwaukee," he added.

      Jurek suggested the use of gulags for "re-education" of Trump supporters and praised political labor camps. He said gulags have been misunderstood and were actually "a lot better" than described, noting people were paid "a living wage" and allowed conjugal visits.

      "There's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right?" Jurek said. "Actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education."

      "Greatest way to breaking a f***ing billionaire of their privilege and the idea that they're superior, go out and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You're now a working-class person and you’re going to f***ing learn what that means, right?"

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        My true beliefs?

        Everybody knows. I am for adjustments in the current system to make it more difficult for the oligarchs, plutocrats, corporatists, and what have you to basically control society and the fortunes of the rest of us as laid out so eloquently by Elizabeth Warren, who is still my preferred choice. I prefer reform over revolution, the drastic approaches advocated by Sanders. But, Warren is not far behind. Obviously your claim to support her was just a ruse on your part?

        Access to inexpensive or free trade schools or community college is part of that. Charging a tax for Wall Street trades is part of that. Restrictions on lobbying and influence of wealth and money in our political system is also part of that. If I have billions to bail out banks, hand the rich tax cuts regardless of how it affects the deficits or support redundant and profligate military spending, then all this stuff that Warren and Sander speaks of as all being too much is just a bunch of BS.

        Well, Ken, life is hard but there are obstacles in the way that can be removed that can make the struggle less unfair and level the playing field amongst us all. Is it obtainable in an absolute sense? Probably not. But the pursuit of that must be a guiding principle for America, or we all just as well resign ourselves to a feudalistic existence.

        Did I advocate violence anywhere? But I do advocate a fervent political desire to the avoid the Right and all that it stands for like the plague. Any Democrat candidate will be referred to as a Communist/Socialist, etc., so rather than become a dupe of corporate America, ask where the Right has ever been serious about ANY compromise.

        I will stick with Bernie, if I can't have Warren. And as Forrest Gump said, "that is all I have to say about that".

        1. Ken Burgess profile image88
          Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          No, not a ruse, its merely a matter of my viewpoints/politics or what have you do NOT take on a religious or fanatical belief.  I accept what currently is, I project out to where things may go, and what may be the consequences thereafter.

          We survived Bush Jr., we survived Obama, we will survive Trump, the older one gets, the more one should realize that the more things change the more they stay the same... and barring a complete revolution/collapse of society things typically get worse or better in moderation over the course of years.

          Warren to the best of my knowledge would not be OK with Gulags, or Dictatorships, but Bernie and his supporters seem to have a twisted view on how things worked out for the tens of millions of Russians who died in communal farms and Gulags and worker camps. According to Bernie having 'bread lines' is a good thing, and suppression under absolute dictatorial rule is fine so long as 'the trains are on time'.

          Sanders' views are quite literally psychotic and it should be terrifying to people that he and his supporters believe as they do about Gulags and Bread Lines and Castro.

          The fabricated falsehoods and outright lies put forth about Trump should be OBVIOUS by now... the economy did not collapse... WWIII did not occur... America did not regress to 200 years ago culturally or socially the only thing that has occurred during the last 3 years is more Americans than ever are prospering, finding jobs, and getting better wages.

          Its amazing, more people have more opportunity than ever before, we are more aware and better educated than in times past... but here we are with so many supporting Sanders who wants to bring an end to it all.




          Those are good, rational, moderate changes that should be made.

          Warren may be pushing that agenda, Sanders is pushing something entirely different.




          No, that is hyperbolic nonsense.  But that IS a description that fits Sanders aptly.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Are you really going to take one radical guy, filmed by the discredited Project Veritas no less, and conflate his views to Bernie and his entire movement ? Really?

          2. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I don't believe any of the rightwing oriented bullsh@t about Bernie, he has a reputation of being in the trenches for the little guy well over 50 years. The GOP referred to Obama as a Kenyan Socialist, while his agenda was relatively mild in comparison, so who cares what THEY say?

            And while I may well bristle over Bernie's extremes, I feel more comfortable with him at the helm than ANY Republican or Corporate Democrat. I will trust his instincts over that of any Rightwinger.

            While the Rightwinger sings Trump's praises, for many of us, we have gone backwards, more slinging hash jobs are always going to be there. For people to enter the middle class, we have to invest in our people and do better, butfor the oligarch mindset content with the labor force as mere drones under their control, these ideas are revolutionary.

    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I hear you, but I would qualify that with "some" conservatives.

      Perilous times ahead....yes, it seems so.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Acknowledged, thanks....

  6. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 17 months ago

    I think I will leave this 'true cost analysis' tangent for another "Bernie" thread. Although I am not a Bernie supporter, and I do think his ideas are too extreme, my comments were intended to address why he would be a disaster for the Democrats during the General election.

    I think the costs of his proposals will get hammered in Republican ads, and the Democrats will then have to defend those costs. I don't think that is a place they want to be.

    I think the extremes of his programs will get hammered as unrealistic, and the Democrats will have to respond with a "yeah, but . . .", and I don't think that is a position they want to be in.

    And finally, Sanders has left a historical trail of clips praising folks like Castro, and their programs, yet what country that he has praised can he now point to of proof of his praise? Those clips will be in Republican ads following the ads about the other points mentioned.

    Even if the costs were as defensible as you say, and even if his extreme programs don't have a chance of coming into being without some moderation, that isn't the picture that will be portrayed, but it is the picture the Democrats will have to paint in order to defend Sanders against the attack ads. I certainly don't think that is a position the Democrats want to be in on the General campaign trail.

    Of course, my thoughts about "sensible" voters might be all wrong. PrettyPanther's comment certainly illustrated that possibility and the fervor of Sanders' 'base' base might be more contagious than I imagine.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      TRump was elected. You shouldn't be surprised by anything at this point, Gus.

    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I could comment a lot on this but I will just address the idea that Democrats will be required to defend his extreme positions. I disagree.  They can simply say all Democrats, like Bernie,  want every citizen to have the health care they need. The GOP and Trump have done nothing to address health care except try to take it away and cut Medicare and Medicaid.

      On his free public college education, they can say all Democrats want to help talented young people get a college education even if they can't afford it. The GOP and Trump don't care if a bright mind is going to waste as long as their rich donors' average kids can get into Yale or Harvard.

      You get the idea?

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I do get the idea. I just don't see it as being that easy.

        Maybe we will get the chance to see.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          True, but it's never easy, even if the plan is a moderate compromise modeled after a Republican plan, like the ACA was.  The GOP and Trump will make any forward progress proposed by Democrats sound like sociaiism, even if it isn't, so it really won't play out any differently than it always does.

        2. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          I do get the idea. I just don't see it as being that easy.

          [edit added]

          Independent Jane Taxpayer is concerned by a Trump ad showing Bernie's M4A price tag of $60 trillion, and, his plan to abolish all private healthcare plans.

          Do you think a response that all Democrats want every citizen to have the health care they need, and a "cutting medicare" counter-claim, ( Politifacts says this isn't a truthful claim ), against Trump will alleviate her concern?

          Independent Joe Taxpayer is concerned by a Trump ad showing Bernie's Free College  $11 Trillion dollar price tag.

          Do you think knocking Trump's rich donor kids will assuage his concern?

          Maybe we will get the chance to see.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I don't  think it would with a voter like you because you are more conservative than liberal. I think most voters are pretty firmly esconced in one camp or the other and for every video of Bernie that scares conservatives there are probably three of Trump that scare liberals. That rare true independent will be the only one trying to decide between scary socialism and scary incompetence & corruption.

            I'm not arguing that it will be easy to defend Bernie's policies; I just think that the election of Trump showed us that most voters don't vote based on rational, detailed analysis of a candidate's policies. Bernie, in many ways, is the left's version of being sick of the status quo and, if voter turnout is high, he will beat Trump.

            My totally amateur analysis. Lol

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              And not a bad analysis either. If there is high voter turnout I think it will be Democrat voters.

              But, (and you know I always have one), if Sanders is the nominee that could also motivate a high Republican voter turnout. As you can see, I still think Bernie will be a disaster for Democrats. ;-)

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                But, it has been observed that when there is high turnout, it generally favors Democrats. When there is less interest, Republicans can win. The lackluster Democrat turnout below that received by Obama in 2012 is the reason HC lost and Trump prevailed.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Hillary lost because of low voter turnout? Geesh! Even if you are right, it is still a 'geesh!'.

                  However, without checking, I suspect you might be right about higher voter turnout generally being a Democrat occurrence.

                  To my point, I think a Sanders agenda might be the catalyst for a higher Republican/Independent turnout.

                  Remember, I am just offering my perception, but I think a Sanders agenda will be much more motivating, (against Sanders), for Independents than it will be for Independents against Trump.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    GA, you know that Trump only won with the slight of hand provided by the Electoral College.

                    I just never remember a time when Republicans actually "rushed the gates" during an election cycle. But, the situation may be such where the Right may find itself highly motivated.

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "On his free public college education, they can say all Democrats want to help talented young people get a college education even if they can't afford it. The GOP and Trump don't care if a bright mind is going to waste as long as their rich donors' average kids can get into Yale or Harvard."

        You have found the words and explanation for Bernie's program, thanks...

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          "talented young people get a college education even if they can't afford it"

          I don't know where you live, but where I live there are school counselors who know and have access to thousands of scholarships.  State, local, federal scholarships.  Endowment scholarships, company scholarships and more.  If a young person is truly academically gifted, there is always a way for them to get to college.  I have a friend who grew up in bad circumstances but had a real gift for doing well in school.
          He got his BA degree and even his law degree paid for with scholarships.  It's just like being a talented athlete, you can write your own ticket.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            And if you can't get an academic scholarship, there are always ones for being of a specific race.  Or sex.  Or from a specific town.  Or, or, or. 

            Then there are grants for almost anything, and there is always the GI bill to fall back on.

            And if all that fails, there is always a job, as distasteful as that might be.

          2. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Ok, Mike, I will have to do a little checking on the accessibility of higher education anyone that wants it based on your comment. How about trade schools?

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, there are grants available.  These are loans that don't need to be paid back.

              Trade School Grants

              "Grants, on the other hand, are bestowed as free, no-strings-attached money. Economic need is the typical basis on which they are awarded. Sorting through the different categories of grants requires both time and effort, but it is time and effort well spent. The payoff can be lucrative."

              https://www.collegegrant.net/trade-school-grants/

          3. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            I funded almost full three years of college with scholarshios. As you progress to higher levels, scholarships become harder to get and more specialized for type of degree, a specific college, and the like. A lot a people are left out.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image88
              Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              So what you are saying is that it is hard to get your education free after 4 years of college?

              Oh, what a crime!  What a travesty! 

              How is someone supposed to remain in school until they are 25 years old without working, or dealing with the real world, if they can't get a free post education after their free post education!?!

              Its UNFAIR that only the brightest and most talented minds can get that for free!  Damn it! It should be available to anyone, no matter how incompetent, ignorant, or downright incapable they are!

              We NEED a revolution!

              Free education for however long a person wants it!  All expenses paid!
              No matter how poorly the student does! In fact, we need to do away with grades, do away with testing all together... if you want to be a neurosurgeon no test should stand in your way of being that, you can be whatever you want to be, whenever you want to be it.

              1. Eastward profile image90
                Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                As someone that spent a lot of time working in education, I'll say that while some of the best and brightest minds certainly get access to scholarships, I'd be hesitant to say that's the case the majority of the time.

                There are many other students that may be as bright or brighter, but their parents don't have the means necessary to enroll them in private classes that supplement their basic education, private tutors to make sure they are at the top of their game, etc. There are a lot of factors that help propel certain students ahead of the pack, but the wealth factor cannot be ignored.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Eastward, as an honest attempt at a thought; Isn't there some point where honest desire, drive, and ambition should enter the picture? Of course, there are factors that propel some students ahead of others, but isn't that part of the process of 'the cream rising to the top'?

                  Will a student propelled by parental or monetary advantage really succeed beyond their abilities? I don't think so.

                  To be clear, I strongly disagree with the premise that the Horatio Alger concept is a passe' thought of history. I strongly believe it is a bar we should all recognize as extremely relevant to human achievement in society. We are not all equal, and when the government tries to make us so it is doing us a damaging disservice.

                  GA

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    "Will a student propelled by parental or monetary advantage really succeed beyond their abilities? I don't think so."

                    Have you attended college with rich kids?

                  2. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    GA, of course desire, drive, and ambition do enter the picture as well. I didn't mean to imply that they don't.

                    And no, parental money cannot expand the abilities of a student, but it can give them an extreme head start, all the help and tools available, to help them reach their potential (and to do so more quickly).

                    I wouldn't argue that there is value in the Horatio Alger concept and I do think there is a limit to what government can/should do to further equality. However, I think that every day that the current system is allowed to be in place, the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story becomes less likely. With corporations dictating politicians and policies, we will be moving ever more steadily towards a neofeudalist system where you will be firmly secured in your place in society by birth.

                  3. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    "Will a student propelled by parental or monetary advantage really succeed beyond their abilities? I don't think so."

                    But they at least have the advantage of having an opportunity, money allows mediocre people to get their foot in the door. This idea of meritocracy is just more Horatio Alger stuff. The money is the "MAE West" that allows little Wentworth, the rich kid, the buoyancy to become
                    the "cream" at the top when he otherwise would not be.

                    Do you really think that Donald Trump or George Bush were really exemplary scholars at the Ivy League schools that they attended?

              2. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Damn Ken, you are as bad at sarcasm as I am. Let it go.

                GA

              3. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                No, I didn't say any of that. Where did you get that nonsense? The same place you got that Project Veritas video?

                Ken, you can do better.

          4. Eastward profile image90
            Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Some stats for reference:

            "Among full-time college students enrolled at four-year colleges, just .3% received enough grants and scholarships to cover the full cost of college"

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-rare-a … olarships/

  7. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/p720x720/88273869_1338567359682629_5791946746514898944_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=yI5hyCQ98_QAX_HE7wV&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&_nc_tp=6&oh=0e121701339f831d2c5d5470b8553963&oe=5EBDBD64

    1. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Just curious, but how much money should Bernie have? Since you can presumably do math, he's probably made $100,000/year for the last 30 years I would guess, if it's averaged.

      Shouldn't we be more suspicious were he NOT a millionaire?

      1. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I don't care how much money he has. I don't care how much money anybody has. He does. Which is what makes him a flaming hypocrite.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Doesn't he just believe that rich people should pay more taxes? Even Warren Buffet believes that knowing it will mean he'll be paying more taxes.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            If Bernie Sanders is a true socialist he should believe in the redistribution of wealth.  This is an opportunity for him to be an example of what he believes.  He should give the majority of his money to the government.  That's what he wants everyone else to do.  So, why is he such a hypocrite?  Why isn't he willing to be an example and redistribute HIS weath.  That would be leadership, what he is right now, is a hypocrite.  He tells everyone what THEY should do with their money but wants to protect his own.  Typical socialist.

            1. hard sun profile image85
              hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              First, Bernie doesn't say he's a "true socialist." Whatever that means. I guess it means whatever you want it to mean.

              He did say this “The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist – like tomorrow – remember this: I don’t believe that government should take over the grocery store down the street, or control the means of production,” he said. “But I believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.”

              And this:
              “When Trump screams socialism, all of his hypocrisy will not be lost on the American people,” Sanders said. “Americans will know that he is attacking all that we take for granted: from Social Security to Medicare to veterans health care to roads and bridges to public schools to national parks to clean water and clean air.”

              Also. Who said Bernie would not pay the same tax rate that he is proposing others with his level of wealth pay?

              It seems like you are piggy-backing on a completely false narrative created by Trump and his state news network

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                In regard to your comment.

                You want to know something, Hard Sun, you're good, damned good. That is how I see all of this as well

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Odd how he leaves out the subsidized housing, subsidized/free health care, subsidized/free secondary education, free food, free transportation, free money, etc., isn't it?  In other words, all the things that benefit only specific people rather than the people as a whole?

                2. hard sun profile image85
                  hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Ha ha..thanks. I always think people are damned good when they are thinking like me also!

              2. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                “But I believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal."

                What does THAT even mean?  Sound good, but it explains nothing.  It is political fodder for the gullible.

                "Social Security to Medicare to veterans health care to roads and bridges to public schools to national parks to clean water and clean air.”

                That involves government spending.  It is NOT socialism.  Everything is funded by taxes paid by taxpayers.  Where Sanders gets his socialism is him increasing the tax rate.  He is for the government taking even more of the money you earn. 

                "Increase spending by $51.5 trillion
                According to the liberal Progressive Policy Institute, Sanders’ proposals would increase federal spending by a whopping $51.5 trillion over a decade. That’s seven to eight times what relative moderates like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are pushing. It is also more than 50 times the size of Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2010 would cost less than $1 trillion over 10 years.

                The biggest-ticket items on Sanders' wish list include:

                ►$24.4 trillion to finance his "Medicare for All" proposal.

                ►$16.3 trillion for the "Green New Deal," far more than other candidates would spend to combat climate change.

                ►$2.2 trillion for child care, pre-K and K-12 education.

                ►$2.1 trillion for higher education and debt forgiveness.

                ►$1.4 trillion for expansion of Social Security programs.

                It's true that, under Medicare for All, people wouldn't have to pay private health insurance premiums any more. And Sanders proposes $22.5 trillion in tax increases and military spending cuts to help offset the cost of his spending spree. But that still leaves a gap of more than $25 trillion

                Spending would be 37% of GDP
                If Sanders were to get all of his proposals enacted, his federal government would rise to 37% of the economy, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This would be an enormous departure from what has been a social contract between the government and the governed."

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 726833002/

                So, anyone with even a little economic understanding can see this would crash our economy. 

                I suggest you look at what happened to Venezuela or Brazil if you want to see what Sanders proposals would do to our country.  It sounds good to those who don't know the reality of what is has done to other countries. 

                I hope he wins the nomination.  He will be easy to defeat in a general election.  Too many Americans are too smart for a guy like this.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't know that the economy would crash - the money is still and still being injected into the economy and spent.  Even the tens of thousands of lost jobs in the health insurance business would still be there and be spent.

                  But it would surely change the reasons to work, which will result in more people sitting home and a loss of productivity nation wide.  THAT would affect the economy!

                2. hard sun profile image85
                  hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I addressed your argument that I wanted to address Mike. And, I think I made that point very well.

                  We both know that we don't have nearly the same views no national economics. I could argue all day about what the hell Trump means when he says...well just about anything he says. I think it's pointless.

                  Oh and back to my question "Also. Who said Bernie would not pay the same tax rate that he is proposing others with his level of wealth pay?"

                3. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Mike,

                  If it's any consolation, I'm quite liberal (mostly for social reasons) and rather sick of the Democrats just promising gifts as a way to get elected. I would really like to see some kind of comprehensive training program to re-educate people who are in industries that are disappearing, like coal, for instance, instead of finding ways to hand out government funds. I would really like to seem them stop pandering to Latinos and actually come up with policies that work for immigration. Among other things.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    "I would really like to see some kind of comprehensive training program to re-educate people who are in industries that are disappearing, like coal, for instance, instead of finding ways to hand out government funds."

                    Can't talk about things like that, it is Socialist heresy.

          2. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            That seems to be the gist of it. Attacking him because he may be wealthy is a false narrative/scare tactic. They believed Trump when he said he would stop evading taxes and put America first, but they don't believe Bernie would pay the same tax rate he's proposing for others. That's just nonsensical.

          3. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Just curious, but how do you justify wanting "rich people" to pay more for what you enjoy the use of than you do?  Just because you don't want to pay your fair share, but is there something more?

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Well, Wildreness, it is a progressive taxation principle established early last century. And this is just as sacrosanct as your precious Electoral College.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Then you justify it because it's been done a long time and because you don't want to pay your share. 

                The same thing could have been said about slavery, women's suffrage and a whole lot of other things, right?  It was there for a long time so is acceptable.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, Wilderness, welcome to the 21st century, this chart indicates that most of the developed world uses progressive income taxes. Are we special somehow that your perception of all this takes precedence over the wisdom of the policies of the vast majority of the world?

                  See the chart as part of Wikipedia.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … _tax_rates

  8. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago

    Liberals don't get to decide who their front runner is. I'll bet you anything Bernie looses it for the second time in a row.
    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/88967490_1339473372925361_1550360843122638848_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=K6Rv_5OroGQAX-qS1B2&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&_nc_tp=7&oh=66afefec3410ee449aaf5a15c5c93936&oe=5EEC0D33

  9. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/88984091_529846844617706_5074232250787168256_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_eui2=AeHshRnswCFwRJ0otEHGss7bt22T72FptPrQCDW-MgZ6GM4d5E-M-RoouikuyStgTytUNQBPUzU27JZuA347DUmQRCAo6jlKA9Q3ZdLYajzw5A&_nc_ohc=klJ8mYVCdm8AX_TLxah&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=80f99ca9f092a68ac3d0e04fade7fbe1&oe=5EF60A0D

    1. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Excellent!

      1. Eastward profile image90
        Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Excellent if you are too ignorant to know what communism is.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          If Sanders is a communist, then Trump and his supporters are truly fascists.

  10. hard sun profile image85
    hard sunposted 17 months ago

    ""If someone needs a decent paying job, and can't find one in this country that suits them, the problem is with that person." Again another comment that screams of privilege."

    I'm not sure anything more true has ever been written to the point that this statement highlights the privilege that some Americans have no clue they enjoy. Also, it's clear that some Americans truly don't understand the extent to which the "justice" system tears lives apart and fights to keep people in it so the money machine can keep rolling. Some people have no clue what it's like, for example, to be but in jail with a 500 thousand cash bond for a crime you didn't commit, then be forced to plead guilty with the threat of 75 years in prison so that you have a felony on your record and can easily be swept right back into the system if they choose. These stories plague Americans, and have MUCH more to do with generational poverty than does the fall-back of deficiencies of laziness, lack of intelligence, etc. More people are understanding this though as they live it out.

    America may have created one of the biggest police states in history...and some people cannot even see it.

    1. Eastward profile image90
      Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      This is very well said, HS. I started a thread for this video, because I thought it was so on target. I think you'd appreciate it (Trevor Noah on Bloomberg and Stop-and-Frisk):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFivw-dB4gA

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Wow. I hadn't actually heard the tape and missed your thread. Can you imagine how many felons they could generate if they stopped and frisked everyone exiting a high-class nightclub on a Saturday night. AND...did not allow them to  their way out?

        I will agree with Bloomberg in that things like stop and frisk don't affect just minorities. (the minorities frisked too  comment by Bloomberg is ridiculous though and seems outright racist) I live in a neighborhood with a ton of poor white people, with a a proportionate minority population, and the police crawl the hood just looking for people to frisk and pullover without cause. Whites get caught up in this as well. The system will take advantage of ANYONE if they can around here, no matter skin color, as so few have the means to defend themselves!

        I've said this here before though. Given a choice, I'd take my chances with my white skin walking through the hood as opposed to any shade of brown.

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          You are hitting the nail on the head here in more ways than one, HS. In this country that is so obsessed with freedom, isn't ironic that we are talking about "how many felons they could generate"? And that's really what it comes down to isn't it? They are generating felons to fill for-profit prison contracts and sustain the massive police state that needs to feed itself.

          I completely agree that the system affects whites as well. Where I grew up there were no minorities, but they still were circling the neighborhoods, waiting to prey on anyone in anyway they could. If they couldn't find something, they'd just make something up. There was no real system of accountability (and I'd bet there still isn't).

          But yes, with the obvious skew of police violence and profiling against minorities, I'd take my chances as a whitey as well.

          I was really impressed with Trevor's take in that video clip. I hope that it clicked with a lot of Americans that either cannot see (or refuse to see) the truth.

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Minorities are more likely to commit crimes, but they are more likely to struggle with economic factors that lead to crime such as poverty and lack of jobs.

            Until this country truly offers equal opportunity -- which it is slowly moving toward -- we won't have easy answers on police violence and profiling.

            That said, we still have more freedom from law enforcement than even places such as Great Britain and its CCTV mass surveillance program.

            Do you think Chomsky would agree with me?  wink

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surv … ed_Kingdom

            1. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I think you are getting at the heart of the matter too, Promisem. If we expect to get closer to resolving the police issues, we need to have significantly more equal opportunities. Gig economy jobs that barely self-sustain aren't going to cut it.

              I'd say that the size of the U.S. keeps us from a CCTV network like Great Britain has, but China has proven that if you make it a priority, it can be done hmm

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Bravo, it is just another reason we really need to look at education and access for those that want the opportunity. If equal opportunity were really the case, why the difference in employment and wage outcomes.  How can I really expect from a society that balks at excessive cost for school lunch programs yet will bail out the banksters for billions and not bat an eye?

                As for many other things in life, some are more equal than others. While touted as such, this society is not a meritocracy as much as some would like you to believe.

                I still cant get over why the net worth of the typical African American is less than one tenth that of the average white person here? The stats are not that much different for Hispanic people.  Is the average white person so much smarter than everyone else to support this outrageous disparity? I doubt it. Maybe, it is just coincidence? I doubt it. It was mentioned that in the struggle to get ahead some will have more advantages than others. Too many rightwing oriented Whites are quick to deny the relevance of the past to explain why they are so far ahead in the present and the significance of time toward the advantage of accumulation of wealth. We all are now considered to have started at the same starting line, regardless of the fact that they are laps ahead, allowed to run while our forebears were tied to the starting blocks.  Well, it does not get past me and until structural disadvantages are removed or compensated for, I say BS.

                Yes, I have many beefs and Sanders and Warren are the best answers to at least an attempt to get them addressed.

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  You've got it, Credence. We bailout banks instead of homeowners and worry about kids eating. It's all deception aimed to enrich the 1% and keep the rest of us fighting over scraps (no matter how full your particular plate of scraps may be). People will get upset over somebody using food stamps but not at the Pentagon for simply "missing" trillions of dollars. If it wasn't reality, it would be comical. The disparity in net worth is obviously a problem and I don't think it has much (if anything to do with intelligence or gumption). The system is stacked in favor of those with inter-generational wealth, which a lot of black families don't have to draw upon. The starting line is not even close to the same. Sure, there are countries that are worse in this respect, but we are supposed to be world leaders. So, let's act like it and put forth some real effort towards meaningful solutions.

                  I have many beefs as well and hope that Sanders/Warren progressive policies will gain traction. Of course, the 1% will fight this with everything they've got (which is a lot).

            2. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              "Minorities are more likely to commit crimes . . ."

              I thought I would jump in as co-whipping boy just to show that we don't always disagree promisem.

              I agree with all your comment, especially the "whys," but I only quoted that first part because I think it is also a "why" that helps explain the police focus.

              I agree with most of the criticisms of the state of our justice system, and most of the criticisms of the 'Stop and Frisk' program, but I can't accept the blanket "police state" criticism of our police when the truth of your first statement is the truth of law enforcement's daily life.

              As bad as Bloomberg's "Xerox" statement is, in the context of a New York beat cop's daily life, is it an untruthful statement?

              GA

              1. Ken Burgess profile image88
                Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                It is a shame that the work many police officers have to do is so misunderstood and mischaracterized.

                The reason why there is order in this country is the Police.  The reason why you can go to the grocery store and not be robbed in the parking lot, is the police.  The reason why your child is not kidnapped and sold into slavery, is the police.

                Without our "police state" our country would have plenty of drug-lord controlled counties. rapes and murder would be tenfold what they are today.

                When the government back in the late 60s and early 70s closed down all the institutions for the insane... where did they put them?  No where.  They roam the streets of our cities and towns.  Who do you think has to deal with them daily?  The Police.

                When the local crack-head or drunk-teenager decides they are going to rob the local grocery store for kicks, who deals with that?  The Police.

                Some states are worse than others, in New York the State Police have a quota system (not officially but certainly very real) where the officers have to write a certain amount of tickets no matter what, or they are at risk of losing their job.  Many people get traffic violations that don't deserve them in NY... but the alternative could be a lot worse, imagine not having them to respond to ten car pile-ups on a busy NY highway.  Imagine not having anyone respond to your 911 call when someone is breaking into your home at 3am in the morning.

            3. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              And yes, you and Chomsky are all good, Promisem cool

          2. hard sun profile image85
            hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, the take in the video was a little eye-opening for me. We need more of this. I like Bernies answer on a question about criminal justice:

            "In terms of criminal justice, what we have got to do is understand the system is broken, is racist. We invested our young people in jobs and education, not more jails and incarceration. We end the war on drugs, which has disproportionately impacted African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. We end private prisons and detention centers in America."

            Now, "investing in young people and jobs" is very broad, but I think he has the right idea. We also must do something about employers weeding out people based on a 15 year old felony. A candidate would gain a good deal of votes if he/she started hitting that point on the campaign trail. I think tort reform is the be key to that though. Corporate policies are CYA oriented.

            Yeah. If they can't find something, they just make it up. "Drug dogs" can hit on any car they are told to hit on. They are used as an excuse to take away our Constitutional right of search and seizure, as so many other tools are used.

            Bernie's backers understand these points. Our rights are threatened because of gross economic inequalities. That much is clear to some of us.

            1. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I agree with you that, even if a bit broad, Bernie's answer on criminal justice is a good one. Ending the War on Drugs, ending private prisons, investing more in education and jobs are all things that can I can support. You make a good point in tort reform being essential, too.

              And yes, the idea that people have to still carry around a record with them after they've done their time is a unique American tool of oppression. I was talking with a Portuguese colleague, for example, and the government will only release information deemed relevant to that specific job inquiry (e.g. if you had a history of forging checks and wanted to work at a bank).

              The grey area given for police to "make it up" is far too great. From highly inaccurate drugs dog hits to insubstantial catch all "obstructing" or "disorderly" charges that can be dished out anytime someone doesn't take a knee and bruises an officer's ego. So many other employers keep cameras on their employees, I think keeping them on officers at all times is a must at this point.

              I'm glad that there seems to be a growing number of people that understand the issues, especially Bernie backers.

              1. hard sun profile image85
                hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Interesting about Portugal. I think this is entirely appropriate. I mean, I don't think anyone is asking for a pedophile to work in childcare or a bank robber to work in a bank. Agreed...no reason why cameras shouldn't be on every cop all the time. We can spend enormous amounts of money to "protect" us from foreign enemies, but the ones that threaten most of us...we have excuses like they can't afford to store the data, etc.

                After Super Tuesday, it looks like some of the real change we need may have to wait. I don't have much faith in Biden concerning justice and police reform. At least it does have a chance though, unlike with the current guy. The primary is not over either.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image88
                  Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  That's right, Biden means back to normal... normal corruption, selling out the American people, taking payoffs from China, bailing out he banks.

                  Biden is not a step forward from Trump, he is a step back into the moral-less and criminal cabal controlling our government for the rich.

                  Hate Trump all you want... but don't lie to yourself... the American economy, the jobs created the last three years, has everything to do with Trump's threats of taxing companies that leave, of strong-arming a new NAFTA deal and challenging China.

                  These things never occur if Clinton had been elected, and they go away as soon as Trump is out.

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    If you say so. The company I work for sent two major departments overseas since Trump's reign. Oh well.

                2. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Another interesting point he made on Portugal was that his son receives a food allowance every month. He asked if they still would receive it when they moved abroad and they asked him, "Does your kid still need to eat? If so, then yes".

                  And yeah Super Tuesday didn't turn out the way I had hoped. It's something to behold watching the Establishment change the course of things within a matter of hours. I'll keep fighting for Bernie though. As you said, it's not over yet.

                  1. hard sun profile image85
                    hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Yup. It is something to watch the status quo Dems change course. I think that's a strategic mistake, though I know that's not the popular thinking. I mean, look at what Trump did. And..really what's the difference between Biden and Hillary. Personally, I find Biden more likable, maybe him being male will work for him, or against him, IDK.

                    Back to Portugal. It makes you wonder why many Americans think it's a crime to ask our tax dollars to go toward actually helping American citizens. That invisible hand nonsense I guess. I mean!?!?!

  11. Eastward profile image90
    Eastwardposted 17 months ago

    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "off kilter". I'd say that you have been successfully propagandized and see through that distorted lens (a little Chomsky refresher might do you some good).

    I don't know how you jumped to organ harvesting, which is horrible when it happens in China or anywhere else for that matter. Does that mean the U.S. doesn't play it's part in the global black market? https://law.utah.edu/organ-trafficking- … st-a-myth/

    If that came from my "hunting minorities for sport" comment. I was referring to police killings: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -countries

    And America certainly has it's share of forced labor:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar … ca/406177/

    Big Brother in the USA is also live and well and I'm glad you brought that up as it is another reason I support Bernie Sanders (and his opposition to the Patriot Act) http://inthesetimes.com/article/22326/b … y-records/

    When you combine mass surveillance with open records laws and credit scores, we're more like China in that respect than we are different.

    I'd agree that there are a lot of great Chinese people, doing amazing things. I'm not saying China is "better" than America, and even if I was, that's pretty subjective. It certainly has it's share of issues (as do we).

    Although, when it comes to safety and care for those in need, I'd hope we'd look to the leading countries and not to China. There are certainly better examples in those respects.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image88
      Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I know I am jumping back a bit responding to this.

      Here is the problem with Chomsky, he recognizes the issues, but has no solutions to them.

      Its like Bernie Sanders, his proposals are for drastic changes, that may sound good and be popular with some people... but are totally unrealistic and cannot be accomplished without destroying the Nation as it is, and tens if not hundreds of millions of lives would be negatively effected to create a "better" system with free healthcare and free education.

      We aren't a nation of 15 or 30 million people, we are a nation of 325 million and our economy is keeping the rest of the world afloat.

      Bernie's changes aren't going to happen without collapsing the Insurance, Big Pharma, Medical Industries and effecting the millions of people who work in them.

      This on top of changing the taxation system and relieving people of another 10% or so of their income (at the minimum) to support the new system.

      There is no easy solution when you are the world's largest economy and have a population in the hundreds of millions.  Changing a Capitalist system to a Socialist one, messing with what is 1/5 the economy, is going to have painful consequences for millions of people.

      1. hard sun profile image85
        hard sunposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        "Bernie's changes aren't going to happen without collapsing the Insurance, Big Pharma, Medical Industries and effecting the millions of people who work in them."

        Whenever this happens in other industries, we are told to retrain and start different careers. Besides, while these industries would most certainly be disrupted, I don't see them being destroyed. In fact, hospitals loved the expanded Medicaid under Obamacare as it meant they would actually get paid for the millions of people going to emergency rooms and such who were not insured. I wrote lobbying letters for several major hospital networks across the nation, advocating that states take the Medicaid expansion money.

        Medicare for all, or universal healthcare, would bring a boost to some areas of the medial field. I agree that there is no easy solution. I don't think Bernie believes there is. I do think that when politicians start talking too detailed in policy while campaigning, it hurts their chances. See John Kerry, etc.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image88
          Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Yes they did.

          So did the Big Insurance companies.

          The reality of Obamacare was that it helped the Big Insurance companies crush the smaller/local more affordable ones.

          It helped Hospitals congregate under one large corporation and crush smaller local hospitals.

          It allowed insurance companies to put the burden of expenses on the individual and helped them escape actually paying those medical bills.

          Which of course, when you kill off the competition and become a regionalized monopoly backed by the government, is an easy thing to do.

          Obamacare was nothing that it said it was, it didn't save people money, it didn't make healthcare cheaper, and it didn't make it easier to get real insurance that actually covered anything.

          What did it do?

          Well it allowed kids that wanted to stay in college until they were 26 stay on their parent's healthcare plan... yeah... I don't think that was a big help for people who are struggling to get by.  Might be a help for the rich and well off Americans... just don't see that as helpful to the mom working three part time jobs to pay the bills.

          It made sure it was possible for people who had serious health issues get coverage... but... they still had to pay a good percentage of the bill themselves.  And honestly this is something that could have been taken care of far better just amending medicare/medicaid to cover those people that private insurance refused to cover... much simpler and more cost effective than the monstrosity they came up with in the ACA.

          Sadly, people such as yourself, that defend Obamacare and think it was a good thing fail to realize how harmful it was to so many Americans, who ended up paying far more for far less coverage.

          The issue comes back to the refusal of many to accept just how corrupt the system is... that the politicians are in the pockets of the corporations and every time the pass a new bill or trade agreement, be it NAFTA or the ACA... it is the American people who are getting screwed over, not helped.

          It has been this way for a long time... it has been like this through Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama... Presidents came and went... but sellouts in Congress that have been there for 30 years or longer have ensured that the Laws passed and the Trade agreements signed stick it to the American population.

          Trump is the first exception to this in a long while... he is the closest thing to an ally for the American workers that we have had in a quarter century.

          The criminals like Biden, the Clintons, the Bush family, sold us out.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Tell it all....Rush....tell it all! Trump, the very epitome of honesty and integrity!  Why is he hiding his taxes, Ken? Care to opine on that?

          2. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            It goes back farther than that. When I was young, nobody had health insurance, but we managed to afford our health care. Back in the 1960s, I had two babies and later after the second one, I spent 9 days in the hospital from major surgery. All of this without a dime of insurance or help from anyone. My husband worked and paid off every dime of my bill. Not one bill, not even the 9-day hospital bill was over $500. Don't you see something wrong here? When the corporations got together and decided that everyone had to have insurance, the bills skyrocketed disproportionately to inflation. It was then that Bushes, Clintons, Bidens, et al decided to try to help people who were suffering from inflated medical bills.
            Also, have you been to a doctor or the hospital lately? The charges for an uninsured patient are quadruple the charges to the insurance company for an insured patient. I was in the hospital last October. The hospital billed my insurance an amount for a flu shot and added $60 more just for the nurse sticking me with the needle.  They called that "administering charges".

      2. Eastward profile image90
        Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Recognizing issues is a good first step, which we can thank the work of Chomsky for. But yes, we do need solutions. Calling Bernie's plans drastic and unrealistic is hyperbole considering that every other industrialized nation has universal healthcare, with second and some third world nations on their heels. American defeatism on the issue is really something to behold. We don't need to compare ourselves to nations of 15 million people when we have countries like Japan, with a population of 125,912,170 working with real solutions we can learn from.

        Big Pharma does need to be scrapped and I'd agree it does have to be done carefully. M4A will still require personnel, and I'd like to see some job transition programs in place. Also, keep in mind that with M4A, job mobility will be much less daunting.

        There are a lot of fanciful numbers circulating about Sander's proposed tax brackets, but here they are https://bernietax.com/

        Of course there are no easy solutions but we cannot allow some of the atrocities happening in the US to continue. We cannot claim to be a free country while imprisoning more of our population than any society in history (and doing so for profit motives devoid of moral imperatives). I'm not willing to standby while people continue to die due to lack of healthcare. I'll keep fighting for others and I hope that the rest of us, to the best of our ability, will continue to do the same.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          But Bernie's plans are drastic and unrealistic.

          If the problems his policies address are as serious as he says, then I want to see realistic solutions, not 'pie in the sky' proclamations.

          To avoid the visceral response to healthcare for all, how about a realistic look at his student debt proposals—forgiveness of all student debt.

          Why? Of course,  it is a societal mantra that everyone must go to college. A four-year degree is a must. But, an easier case of baloney would be hard to find.

          A higher education degree must be for more of a purpose than just the acquiring of a degree.

          If that were understood as a reality of life, then accepting that contracts freely entered into are valid contracts should also be easy to understand.

          I know I am grabbing the low fruit here, but if someone freely enters into a student debt.contract for a degree in Liberal Arts, why should that debt be forgiven? Why is such a contract invalid because one party was naive?

          Can Sanders' forgiving of student debt be viewed as anything more than a populist platitude, aka pandering?

          If Sanders were serious about his thoughts concerning the need for higher education being a prerequisite for modern-day viability, shouldn't he qualify that need by degree type?

          Should we, (taxpayers), subsidize paleoanthropologists degrees to the same extent we subsidize STEM degrees?

          GA

          1. Eastward profile image90
            Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Alright, let's move onto the topic of student debt forgiveness. I do agree, as do numerous financial experts, that a higher education degree needs to have more purpose than simply the acquisition of the degree itself. One should consider carefully the financial impact of the cost of the degree vs. the likelihood of the ROI it can provide. This is exactly the kinds of things high school education programs should be focusing on. I don't know about yours, but mine drastically lacked a focus on preparation for the real world/workforce. That being said, I also think that at least some college experience is extremely beneficial in terms of developing a more well-rounded and educated society aware of the different paths and options they have in life. I do want to see a society where we are prosperous enough to see demand for liberal arts academics and the like. Tying every degree exclusively to the financial benefits that degree provides is limiting to individuals and society in general.

            I agree that people freely enter into student loan contracts but also think we need to understand the amount of years of coercing by the system they endure before they enter into said contracts. Also, the same "children" we are letting enter these contracts are not allowed to decide to drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, go to a casino, etc. Either people are adults or they aren't and we need to be more clear where that line is. 

            Then, consider that United States students need to be competitive globally. How can they do that when they graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt compared to their international counterparts that graduate with less debt or no debt at all (and generally in less time for equivalent degree programs)?

            We also have to consider that young people burdened with student loan debt aren't participating as much in the economy. Urban Institute found that "with every 1% increase in student loan debt, the likelihood of owning a house decreases by 15%." This article goes on to talk about the problems that can lead to as people age https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2 … 1f65dd6619

            Education, like healthcare, is another area where America continues to fall behind while our peers move forward and do the "impossible".

            As James Baldwin put it, "Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Here's my problem.  I and my wife both hold two degrees.  Both of us had significant student debt.  We were able to pay it off and never complained about it.  So, are we smarter, more motivated or just or financially responsible that the students of today? Getting an advanced degree will cost you.  I say, I did it, you can too, don't make your choice my problem.  You can pay off your student loan debt like millions of people before you. 

              As James Baldwin put it, "Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

              1. Eastward profile image90
                Eastwardposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                My first question would be how long ago did this occur? If it's five years ago, fairly relevant. If it's 10 years ago, then not as much. If it's more than that, considering the rise in tuition (materials, cost of living, etc.) it's probably not really relevant at all. Besides, don't you want "students today" to have it better than you did? If it's the same or worse for students today, I think we have to take some accountability for failing to move the country forward.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Greetings, Eastward, this attached pro- Bernie article was penned by former secy of Labor, Robert Reich, as it eloquently speaks for me and my position. See what you think?

                  https://www.salon.com/2020/03/05/robert … s_partner/

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Greetings to you, Credence. Thanks for sharing the article. I agree with you that Reich has done a great job at debunking common criticisms and making the case for progressives, especially Bernie Sanders, here. It has been a little daunting watching what I'll simply refer to as The Empire move in place against Bernie in the past week, but I'm still hopeful. I'll share this political analysis by Kim Iversen with you to share some of that optimism (also looking forward to the debates now with Biden in the spotlight, having to explain his healthcare plan in utmost detail): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHmRSjw … e=emb_logo

                2. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  I want students to be responsible for themselves like me and my wife. Costs and wages are all relative to the time.  As I said, we paid off two advanced degrees. You just have to want to pay it off and be responsible for yourself.  I think this is a valuable lesson students need to learn.  I wouldn't want them to be deprived of having an adult experience like this that will help improve their character. The adult world if filled with facing the consequences of your actions.

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    This article shows university tuition costs from 1987 to 2018 and gets a bit into home prices as well. Clearly, costs of university and housing have skyrocketed compared to wages. Wanting students to be responsible is one thing. Enabling a system that preys on them is another.

                    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-muc … -2018.html

        2. Ken Burgess profile image88
          Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Where to begin...

          First lets deal with the fact that those nations developed those Healthcare support systems as they went... they did not build up the Medical Industry to be a fifth of the Nation's entire economy and then switch over to a "free" healthcare system.

          The disruption would be to roughly 3 million Nurses, 1 million Doctors, half a million or more medical techs, and half a million secretaries and support persons directly related.

          Then there is about 1 million insurance agents, a couple hundred thousand medical researchers, and dozens of related businesses that employ people to service Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Assisted Living, etc.

          Then lets consider the size of the American population, and its active workforce to that of a country a tenth of the size like canada.

          Population Size - Canada had around 32 million.

          Size of population employed - Canada more than 50%

          Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) in 2017 found that on average a Canadian spends $6,604 in taxes for healthcare coverage.

          How that is broken down, I have no idea, but if half the population doesn't work, does that mean the other half that does pays $13,208 on average?

          The total U.S. population age 18 and over is around 245 million. Subtract around 155 million that are employed, that is, those who were either working or looking for work -- that leaves 90 million that aren't working or looking for work.

          So America technically has less than 40% of its population actually working and making income. Putting the burden of the costs on a smaller portion of the population than Canada.

          The American medical system is far more expensive.

          Drugs cost tenfold or more what they do in Canada. The American Big Pharma industry gouges Americans for profits like no other nation in the world, and they have their claws sunk deep into our political and regulation agencies.

          Hospitals like everything else, are geared towards making a profit, a fact complicated by outrageous drug prices, high doctor salaries, costly but necessary security features (to deal with a growing problem of homeless and mentally unstable persons which flow regularly through their doors), insurance (workers comp, liability) and on top of all this, they have to treat anyone who comes through their doors, whether they have a penny to their name or not.

          So to think you can "change" the current system so drastically as to make it possible for people to have access to "free" healthcare without tearing down the system is unrealistic to put it kindly.

          First, the Big Pharma, Insurance, and Medical Industries would use their controlling influence in Congress to give us another Obamacare... which as I have laid out before, HURT the Average working American, while it helped the Big Insurance and Hospitals crush their competition allowing them to drive up prices... the ACA was nothing more than government backed monopolization and taxation that stiffed every working American.

          To make the changes you suggest in any timeframe that would fit within a Administration's term... requires the total dissolution of the current political and medical institutions as they exist, which would bring an incredible amount of turmoil and hardship to all but the wealthiest Americans.

          1. Eastward profile image90
            Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Again Ken, you come off like an insurance company lobbyist (to put it kindly).

            The Economic Policy Institute disagrees with you, as do I:
            https://www.epi.org/publication/medicar … or-market/

            I also fail to see where in your take you solve the problem of uninsured Americans and deaths due to lack of healthcare. If you think this can wait more than 1 presidential term, well, then we'll never see eye-to-eye because we are talking about a moral divide far greater than any political divide.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image88
              Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Please explain what is an "uninsured American death due to lack of healthcare" ... I slogged through that article, it started out making my points really, before it diverted into fantasyland saying a change would create jobs and be more beneficial, when there is not one shred of evidence for this.

              Economics on that scale is no easy animal to corral, and that article says nothing substantial as to how it would be done.

              1. Eastward profile image90
                Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this
                1. Ken Burgess profile image88
                  Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Interesting information.

                  So we have a sort of before and after to the Obamacare abomination being passed:

                  "That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002."

                  Those of us dealing with the real world, and not relying on detached articles and left-wing propaganda, know that millions had to choose between paying for food and rent or useless Insurance that covered almost nothing.

                  They try to hide the fact that while the ACA supposedly got millions on insurance that didn't have it prior, an equal amount of Americans that had insurance had to give it up because of skyrocketing costs and changes in the fulltime work description and other laws brought on by the Obama Administration.

                  "It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually."

                  So its an educated guess... there is no real way of knowing who died because of lack of Health Insurance... its so much garbage.

                  Go spend a few days in an Emergency room, spend 10 to 12 hours there, preferably one with a Mental Ward.  There are a lot of indigent and homeless and unstable people that make their way there regularly, they receive their drugs and medical care... without insurance.

                  The real problem is that they have issues that no amount of health insurance is going to change.  Articles like this one are so nice and tidy, present their opinions and educated guesses as facts, but they are as totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world as the people who sit in Harvard teaching for decades on end are.

                  “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

                  i wonder how many in those nations die while on waiting lists?

                  I wonder how many die because the doctors determine they are too old, or not vital enough to society to waste a transplant or a complicated operation on?

                  I wonder why the grass is always greener in these other countries, but we have people trying to come from all over the world to get to America.

                  1. Eastward profile image90
                    Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    No argument that Obamacare didn't work and, "millions had to choose between paying for food and rent or useless Insurance that covered almost nothing" is exactly why I disagree with Biden's Obamacare 2 approach.

                    "Those of us dealing with the real world, and not relying on detached articles and left-wing propaganda". Self-aggrandizement and petty jabs aren't going to help you make your case. The non-partisan Economic Policy Institute, Harvard, and academics in general are now propaganda?

                    As far as waiting lists, here's what the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund found https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch … or/281614/

                    I believe you are correct that in the US, an emergency room cannot refuse treatment to a patient. Although, I wouldn't equate giving minimal emergency treatment for compliance with the law with the preventive care that America needs.

                    In my experience, even people in the 3rd world are starting to question decisions to relocate to America. They are often shocked at what they find. People talk about the greatness of the United States in the past tense. The doctors I work with discuss how much more impressive it is to travel to a major Chinese city than a US city. We're slipping.

                    I want America to be a world leader, but I think we're going to have to work on human rights, infrastructure, and foreign policy (at least) before anyone will look at us as such again with confidence.

                    Also, on the ripple effects that permeate our system:
                    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … -rate.html

  12. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago

    Voting Democrat=Socialist. Don't be a socialist.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Voting Republican=Dictatorship. Don't vote for a dictator.

  13. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 16 months ago

    And there's go Warren.  Bernie vs. Joe.

    1. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      We should start a betting pool about who she will endorse.

      Sanders must be steaming that she didn't automatically endorse him.

      GA

  14. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 16 months ago

    Having so many candidates was a disaster for the Democrats. They wanted so bad to pick the candidate with the stronger chance to beat Trump (which could have been easier than what it is now), "electability", that ended up with two terrible choices. I like Bernie's ideas, but he is an angry (way) old man with health issues. He is divisive, not so much for his ideas but rather for his personality. Plus he has no charm. Biden seems like a good man, very empathetic, but is senile. Right now, the only hope to defeat Trump is a good VP candidate.

    1. Eastward profile image90
      Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this
      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Ouch! A debate attack points list for Trump.

        GA

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          It certainly is, GA. And Biden is out there lunging at reporters, shoving his fingers in their chests, swearing at voters and calling them names, telling them to vote for Trump. They might actually take his advice.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image88
            Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Its incredibly sad really.  They buried Tulsi under the "Russian operative" accusations and dragged Clinton out of the wine cellar to attack her.
            They dismissed Yang, sacrificed Warren to make crazy accusations against Bernie, so that they can prop up Biden as America's alternative choice to Trump.

            A man suffering from dementia, that has more dirt under his fingernails than even the Clintons perhaps, considering we don't know the half of what he and his son got involved in, but I'm sure China didn't give them 1.5 Billion for nothing.

            Creepy Joe, who is a bit too hands on with little girls for my tastes.

            This is who the DNC is giving us.... you can't get more pathetic, this isn't going to be an election, its going to be a massacre.

            1. Eastward profile image90
              Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              It is sad, Ken. I would have liked to see a real debate with Tulsi, Bernie, and Biden. It's funny how much we heard about needing a woman in the race until she was the only one left (and a woman of color at that!). She would have taken Biden to task on the Iraq War and they can't have that...so yeah...drag out Queen Warmonger herself to bash Tulsi as a Russian asset and do everything possible to discredit Sanders.

              Yang and Warren bent the knee, likely in exchange for a cabinet position that will never manifest (just as Kamala did despite being so damaged by Biden's racism, and Booker despite questioning his mental faculties, and so on).

              I really don't believe they expect to win with Biden. I'm with you in worrying about his hands-on approach to little girls (and grown women). In my opinion, he is the plausible deniability candidate. The priority was taking down Sanders (and Tulsi) then they'll shrug when Biden loses to Trump. They can feign that they tried and the oligarchy will continue on with business as usual.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image88
                Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                It should be infuriating to any Progressive, Liberal, or even moderately Left Democrat that this is what their Party is.

                I don't recall the corruption ever being more blatant or obvious.  You have to have some serious blinders on not to see it.

                What is Biden if not a step back?

                What is Biden if not everything that people despise in Trump, AS WELL AS a Good'ol'Boy that will support the corrupt establishment entirely?

                Its just unbelievable.... Yang would have had a shot.... Tulsi would have been a solid alternative.... Warren was damaged goods when she sold out to go on the attack on Sanders, lost any belief she was legit with that.

                Those controlling the Democratic Party crushed every good option the people had.

                1. Eastward profile image90
                  Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  It is infuriating and I agree the corruption is more in our faces than ever. Joe was a train-wreck of a candidate in 1988 and now they prop him up in his decline. I'm seeing videos in multiple states of people waiting 3, 4, 5 hours or more to vote (and you can guess which communities suffer the most from closed polling stations and long lines). The people that need the help the most are having their votes suppressed.

                  There wouldn't be a massive movement to leave the party if Yang had been their chosen one. Tulsi would have been great before they turned the MSM against her, even Warren would have passed before turning on Sanders (and now the entire progressive movement).

                  If there is any consolation, at least the Democratic party has to continue mask-off from here on out. I don't think people are going to like what they see.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image88
        Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Just amazing... this is what the Democratic Party is offering as the alternative to Trump.

        Just tack this on to the post I made above... I'm not sure they could have found a worse candidate not serving life in prison somewhere.

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          If we weren't talking about the leadership of the country, it would be a joke.

          I guess I might as well get my news from The Onion:
          https://politics.theonion.com/biden-giv … 1842213538

          And #DemExit is trending on Twitter...

    2. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I find Sanders authenticity as more important than being the congenial smooth talker. His being angry for the right reasons makes him more attractive as a candidate in my humble opinion. He is only divisive toward toward those that we need to divisive toward anyway. Those generally not open to any compromise, anyway. So why pamper them? I think that Bernie has more energy and wits than either Biden or Trump, heart attack or no.

      1. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        But you like him and you agree with him. To defeat Trump he'll need more than that.

        I agree that he has more energy. He is still an angry old man with health issues. He better pick a strong VP.

  15. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 16 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14913071.jpg

    1. IslandBites profile image89
      IslandBitesposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Another grumpy old "man"? lol

      https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/donald-trump-his-social-media-updates-cartoon-vector-caricature-june-illustration-94287121.jpg

  16. hard sun profile image85
    hard sunposted 16 months ago

    I'm kinda torn between what Ken and Eastward are saying and what GA is saying. On one hand, I clearly see the Democrat establishment coming together against Sanders, and its disregard for other candidates outside of the establishment. I think Yang cold have offered a better progressive candidate than Sanders, but he just never seemed to get the attention he needed to make a real name for himself.

    At the same time, I don't know how much of this comes down to straight crooked politics with rigging Iowa and what not. I think there are many Democrats who decided they didn't want the Democratic Socialist because it would further divide the country, continuing us on this path of division. I really think a lot of moderate Democrats came out to vote for Biden for that reason. They think Biden can beat Trump and help heal divisions. The problem is that Trumpers don't want to heal divisions, they want to annihilate what they see as the enemy...anyone with a D after their name.

    Bernie definitely has his group of loyal supporters. But, I think he would need to expand his base a bit to win a general...something he could not do when he had only one moderate Dem to run against.

    I think Biden's calling out of the construction worker as full of doo doo is exactly what he needs to do though. To get moderate voters, he has to vehemently deny the extremist labels (terrorist sympathizers, enemies of the second amendment, supporters of lawlessness, etc.) put on all Ds, with all the "honesty" that some say Trump has. I think many Americans see honesty when a politician curses and talks using words they are used to hearing. Myself, I don't think cursing and using the language of the common people or the uneducated make you honest.

    I want real reform. But, as I think Credence is saying, Biden will get my vote over Trump any day.

  17. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 16 months ago

    There may be 'trumpers' as you call them who hate anything Democrat. I've been called a trumper but the truth is I'd like to see a viable candidate by the democrats. Bernie,although I highly respect him personally, could never win me with his policies and Bidenhas absolutely no chance unless he can jump the hurdle of proving her isn't senile.

    The DNC has played everything wrong since the election by not addressing the core issues that got Trump elected in the first place. I know there are reasonable respectable people they could have backed. Somewhere.

    1. hard sun profile image85
      hard sunposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Like the R's came up with someone reasonable and respectable like Trump? I'm sorry, but your logic just makes no sense to me. I really think you can understand the irony in your statement. I don't think anyone can call Trump respectable with a straight face.

  18. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 16 months ago

    I guess the question continued to bug me as to why so many African Americans embraced Biden over a candidate offering more comprehensive solutions to many of our society's problems which directly affect US.
    ------------
    This is from Boston Globe columnist Renée Graham:

    "I like [Warren and Sanders], but I don't see them winning, because I think they're too progressive for a lot of white people in his country," said Marsha…"I don't think white people generally vote in a way that will benefit them if it also benefits Black people."

    For those who lived through the trauma of racial terrorism and segregation, or grew up in its long shadow, this history haunts the campaign trail. And Mr. Trump has summoned old ghosts.

    "People are prideful of being racist again," said Bobby Caradine, 47, who is black and has lived in Memphis all his life. "It's right back out in the open."

    In Tennessee and Alabama, in Arkansas and Oklahoma and Mississippi, Democrats, black and white, told me they were united by a single, urgent goal: defeating Mr. Trump this November, with any candidate, and at any cost.

    "There's three things I want to happen," Angela Watson, a 60-year-old black Democrat from Oklahoma City, told me at a campaign event there this week. "One, beat Trump. Two, beat Trump. And three, beat Trump."

    They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr. Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman.

    ---------

    Sad commentary on the attitudes of so many AA on the state of our society today. I was looking for an explanation. And, I guess I found my answer.

    It surprised me as it is not my position.

    I may be more leftist than most people like me, but I had more faith in the country and its general direction as a whole. Once, viable solutions to long standing problems were presented that they would be anxiously embraced. I was wrong.

    This is a Salon article, and I inform all in advance that you may find it having a uncomfortable leftish bent for many of you. But I think that the basic premise behind the article is correct.

    https://www.salon.com/2020/03/13/why-bl … -universe/

    1. Eastward profile image90
      Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I appreciate the input, Credence. This is something I've been trying to get my head around. The quote, 'I don't think white people generally vote in a way that will benefit them if it also benefits Black people' seems pretty harsh. I think racism in the US is a big problem, but do you think people would really vote against a candidate or policy simply to prevent it from helping black people (even if they would also benefit)?

      I think Americans of all race, creed, and color have bred a unique and extreme form of selfishness though, and would be unlikely to vote for any politician or policy that would help others if it mean even the smallest of sacrifices for them. Research seems to back the selfishness determination (https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ … e-selfish/).

      Hopefully recent events are getting people to reflect on the fact that we don't exist in complete isolation (unless we are quarantined).

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        You've got it. But, I have to ask the question that in regard to social class, people have been known to vote against their own economic interests among many of the Republican persuasion. Is it a ideological bent that take precedence over self preservation?

        There are many in resentment of the so called social welfare state while they are still recipients of it, yet do not see themselves as such. Saying, as to all that ails America it is "those" people and their "freebies" that is to blame. So, the concept, while not taking on the stark racial tones, is not unheard of.

        1. Eastward profile image90
          Eastwardposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I think you are right about voting against economic interests being ideological, Credence. It seems that politicians and wealthy elites have almost become a religion in America and I really don't understand it. I get that mainstream media spends the vast majority of its time manufacturing consent, but still I don't see how people are so susceptible to it. Watching the current election fiasco, I'm think there are far too many liberals that fall into the same trap.

          You also make a good point about the racial undertones of language used and how welfare programs are attacked. Systematic racism is built into the system and a bad actor doesn't need to be overt to prey on peoples' ignorance, anger, and frustration.

          You won't have to hold me back from rushing to vote for someone willing to take on the corruption, hold the oligarchy accountable, reform the criminal justice system, so on and so forth! It'll be no easy task, but at least I have faith that a guy (or gal) like Bernie would give it their best!

    2. Ken Burgess profile image88
      Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      That is a sad article indeed, who knows how reflective it is of the greater whole, hopefully It is a biased or slanted view on the matter.

      But if that is how they vote, it will backfire, Biden is establishment, Biden is senile, and Biden is the worst of the bunch to put up against Trump.

      I suppose if you see things through a prism where you believe you need to support an old white-male-racist (Biden) to defeat what you believe to be a white-male-racist (Trump) then... hell... why are you even bothering to vote?

      Truly sad... "I believe in [fill in the blank] but I'm going to vote for the old racist white guy... so he can beat the old racist white guy!"

      Hard to believe Obama was President less than 4 years ago.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, I am stuck having to choose between 2 old white guys. I would be content if it were 3 old white guys.

        Ken, there is a matter of degree, Republican ideology, methodology and values suck in my opinion and that always will have me select Sanders first, Biden second and Trump, not at all.

        I will always vote to keep the GOP out of power, whatever the price. It is that bad. I can't take the chance that any lack of participation in voting on my part will benefit Trump at any level.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)