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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Age is not necessarily indicative of ability to drive a car or lead. Your bias is snowing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Everyone has biases, but some people won't admit it or truly believe they don't. At least you admit yours. I know I also have some intrinsic bias around both age and gender, but knowing that, I try to stop and really pay attention to the particular qualities of the individual. For example, I am automatically suspicious of a rich, older White man buying his way into politics. Steyer won me over, though, while Bloomberg has only cemented my initial bias.
I hear you, but I rather have a candidate that is 'viable' based on the correct policies as that would trump my consideration of the candidates age.
Compared with the deficits of the GOP and corporate Democrats, Bernie's shortcomings are relatively minor.
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).
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.
I prefer you use the term 'straight lifestyle'.
Please do tell about my "true colors", I'd love to hear more.
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.
"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.
But I don't think the Republicans will work with him, and it will take their cooperation to get any of his ideas passed.
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.
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.
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.
I was going to mention that to Cred, but you beat me to it, plus, the comment was about Democrats working with him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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)
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)
The typical amount of education debt in 2018 among those with any outstanding was between $20,000 and $24,999.
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.
How do you know Hillary's comments were sour grapes? She has no skin in the game, so is likely speaking the truth.
^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.
"^ 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.
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
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.
Which debunked conspiracy theories are you referencing?
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/
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.
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?
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.
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.
Indeed, Bernie nearly has as many pro-Russian statements as Trump has.
And which of those programs do you think would be fully, or even partially, approved by Congress?
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?
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
Eastward, the Trump bullies on here are really dumping on you lately.
Maybe they have a problem with Buddhists.
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?
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.
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.
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/
I think you could be right. SMH
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
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?
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"
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?
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.
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.
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/
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
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.
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."
Thanks, HS. Trump is about as anti-Establishment as I am Loch Ness Monster. You make a good point that he sells himself as anti-Establishment with catchy schoolyard nicknames and speeches with no substance. I've been following him on the conronavirus and "What the" is a very fair take.
Also a good point about anyone threatening the order of the financial elite being attacked and labeled as misinformed. It reminds me of the 5 Monkeys and a Ladder experiment https://www.wisdompills.com/the-famous- … -a-ladder/ We're conditioned to defend the billionaires and fight over the scraps. Americans should have enough self-respect (and respect for others) to see we deserve time off work, healthcare, a competitive education, etc.
I really don't understand how anyone become submissive enough to their employer to want them to lord over them with a healthcare policy. It encourages workers to take all kinds of abuse to avoid a lapse in coverage, and as you mentioned, is terrible for job mobility. A candidate running for Congress was talking on Twitter about how risky it was to quit his job and move on to full-time campaigning due to a lack of healthcare. So, having healthcare in the hands of an employer is also a good way to stifle civil involvement (also pretty convenient for the ruling class).
So what are you going to do?
Lets say Bernie is elected, can he take the Billionaire's money?
No, he can't, Congress won't let him, the Supreme Court won't let him, the Billionaires & Banks and Corporations control these powers.
Bernie will be one man (with his supporters) railing against the wind... he has no ability to do anything positive... if he attacks the corporations they will just move their operations and money to another country... if he attacks the Billionaires its the same thing, they move themselves and their money.
If he creates Universal Healthcare and Free College, every working stiff in America will see his taxes go to 80% of what he earns to cover it... because it won't be the Billionaires paying for it.
You can't tear down the system and create something better, if you tear down the system America becomes a failed state and it will take a generation before it gets close to being 'OK' again...
China was able to transform itself because it had America to sell all its cheap labor products to... China's economic boom is stalling out because it has become a "middle class' society, and no longer a growing nation with vast amounts of cheap labor to call on.
Trump has exposed a ton of corruption in the "establishment" from Clinton to Biden, how they take bribes and sell American secrets and sell-out to foreign and corporate interests.
Trump isn't the cause of any of this, Trump has actually reversed some of the decisions made by sell-out and traitors to the American people who have had a stranglehold on American policies and politics for so long.
It is an enormous over simplification to think you can merely tax the Billionaires and the Corporations...
In a GLOBAL economy it can't be done.... what Americans were able to do in the 40s, 50s even 60s in Unionizing and forcing more rights would be impossible today... back then China nor much of the rest of the world was capable of producing and manufacturing what America could... there was no competition, so the workers had far more power.
Corporations today can go to Mexico, Canada, China... demand too much, and they just move out. The most ANY politician can do to combat this is what Trump has done... tariff and tax the foreign competition so that companies are forced to manufacture here or lose profits; and threaten companies that make plans to leave with outrageous tariffs on their products if they do.
There is only so much that can be done, and it takes time (years) to make positive changes that stick, without trashing the whole entire system... which always ends up poorly for the poorest who suffer the most in a failed system.
Well, first off. I'm not going to give up. This is going to be a hell of a fight that will either result in Americans being able to participate in the modern world or an awful lot of chaos in the streets (and likely bloodshed).
Other than rallying for Bernie and casting my own vote, my personal approach is to try and help with better organization around socially responsible corporations. Corporations with the best employee treatment and environmental treatment should be rewarded and the opposite should be shunned by consumers. That's one of the few powers we have to exercise as workers of the world. If we aren't buying a product from one company, another will rise quickly to fill that gap. It's a bit of a revolution of the mind and spirit, but with the popularity of Bernie Sanders, I at least have hope that Americans (and others) are ready.
It's going to be difficult for Bernie to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations but many are starting to realize that people are pushed to the limit. If they don't give somewhat and soon, it's going to be very expensive and difficult to, as Chomsky would say, "keep the rabble in line". Of course you are right that this can't be the only solution. We need to get teams of the best economists, scientists, sociologists, and otherwise working on plans to move America forward in the global economy.
I'm not a big advocate of trashing the entire system. I still think it can be saved. The current level of greed and loss of freedoms cannot continue, however, as it will cause the country to become extremely unstable.
". . . we deserve time off work, healthcare, a competitive education, etc."
Why do we deserve that? Why shouldn't they be earned priveledges?
And why stop at those as "deserved" privileges, why isn't a financially secure income one of your "deserved" privileges?
I certainly don't think we deserve less than the workers of every major country on Earth (let's be honest, 2nd world and some 3rd world countries can compete with the US on treatment of workers). Should people be required to contribute and "earn" privileges? Sure. That doesn't mean we need to teeter on the edge of corporate slavery though (which, in my opinion, is exactly what we are doing). If you don't think that the for-profit-prison-industrial-complex and militarized police force are a litmus test for outright forced labor, I admire your optimism (though I don't share it in that regard).
"Should people be required to contribute and "earn" privileges? Sure."
At least that is a point we can agree on.
But your introduction of "for-profit-prison-industrial-complex and militarized police force[s]" is a different matter from the topic of discussion. You should start a thread on it instead of interjecting it into other random topics.
However, relative to your "corporate slavery" thought, I think you are at least two decades behind the times. It is my opinion that that work situation went the way of buggy whips in the early 2000s.
I don't think workers have been that dependent on corporate benefits since at least the early 2000s. Job mobility has become a reality rather than a lamentation.
Wow. That's telling GA. We deserve nothing if we don't fight for it. So many of your generation did not have to fight for it. They were handed union jobs when they got out of high school. That's how it was around here. So..yeah. How do we "earn" these privileges by taking it with no lube and asking for more? I work my tail off.
I read you stating, on one hand, that people should "earn" what they get, and on the other they should not demand that they get much of anything from the fruits of their labor. I don't see how that works at all.
One of us has misread something hard sun. I don't know how to comment on others of "my generation," but I wasn't handed anything. I drove an old car until I went into the Navy, and struggled with 'Electrolux Vacumn Cleaner salesman type jobs when I left the Navy.
And from there, I did earn my vacation and healthcare perks in subsequent jobs. I also earned opportunities for on-the-job training and higher education course opportunities. I earned those through my work ethic hard sun. Nobody gave them to me and I was never in any Union. I did utilize some of my GI benefits for buying a home and attending a community college, but those were perks that I also earned—they weren't a gift.
As for your "lube". . . that is a strange thought. Perhaps as "telling" as you think my comment was.
When I speak of generations, I'm not making specific accusations. My point about being handed anything was about healthcare, pensions, those sort of things that just are so prevalent anymore. I too utilized GI benefits for part of my college. My step dad was a green-beret, worked for 30 years at a GM plant before retiring. He told me that so many people of his generation had it easier than we do with the way employers treat their workers these days! You can't earn what is not there.
I think your dad was right. The days of good pensions and working 30 years for a company were my dad's generation, not mine.
And, as a note of differentiation, I think the good pensions of your dad's time, are different from the unfunded and unsustainable pensions of our times.
You may be right GA. I'm talking about a guy who would be like 75. Once again, I said "a generation." At any rate, I'm an envious neophyte or some such. I don't think so. In fact, I think if you take a closer look at the other side of the argument that I'm presenting, you just may learn a bit. I too grow weary of agreeing all the time, but you disagree and...wow.
Regarding your dad, and your "generation" statements, I thought I was agreeing with you. At least that was my intention.
And I think I have looked at the ". . . other side of the argument" In this and plenty of other threads like it over the years.
It seems that no matter how the issue of corruption and disruption should be addressed, the blame is always laid on folks with wealth and ability. It is my opinion that the blame should be put on corrupt and disruptive actions, not a group of people just because they have one tool to be corruptive and disruptive if they want to be.
It's always been 'the ruling class', or 'the elite', and now 'the billionaires' that are blamed. Shouldn't it be the actual actors that get blamed instead of a generalized group?
Wealth is only a tool. Your culprit is the man wielding it for corrupt and disruptive purposes.
History offers plenty of examples of the tragic results of blaming the problem on a 'class', (ruling, aristocratic, etc.), or a 'group', (the wealthy, the Jews, etc), or 'a tool,' (wealth, knowledge. etc.), rather than the real perpetrators of the problem.
I think I have seen the "other side of your argument" hard sun, and I think I did learn something from it, and that is why I continue to argue against it.
Now, I can see that my use of the term "neophyte' missed carrying the meaning that I intended. Obviously it was a poor choice. The thought I was trying to convey was in regard to zealousness, but I will probably screw this explanation up too. So just understand I didn't intend it to be insulting.
Finally, what does " but you disagree and...wow." mean?
I don't think we are understanding each other at all. I have enough of that with my wife. You had called me envious earlier in the thread. Oh well. This one is just not worth it at this point.
One again, a very good argument. But, money has nothing to do with freedom they are saying here. And we are just jealous so should sit down and get back in our places. Not me. I'm not doing their bidding for them.
That's exactly it, HS. Sit down, be quiet, and don't rock the boat for me. The system works for a lot of people here (definitely skewed towards a boomer demographic) and we should pretend that the only reason it doesn't work for others is because of their own character flaws. I'm also not going to gorge myself with propaganda, put on the blindfold, and submit.
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.
"America has been the 'land of plenty' for more Americans than ever before in the past few years."
The company I work for...two departments left for other countries since Trump took office. People are starting to struggle around here big time due to big things like healthcare costs. I just don't see it.
I agree that the market corrections are normal and also affected by what is happening in China (and now rippling out globally). But, Trump couldn't stop patting himself on the back when the market was high, and as Larry Summers said, “The market goes up and the market goes down and if you take credit when the market goes up, I don’t see how you can avoid taking responsibility when the market goes down.”
Trade is one of the few areas where I'll give the devil his due. The Trump administration approach to trade has been far from masterful, but it at least addressed some of the Obama administration's glaring omissions.
As for recovery and wages, of course there are multiple angles and trends to look at (some that can be evaluated regardless of who is in office). All politicians try to spin the numbers in their favor, but Trump is exceedingly self-congratulatory and leaves a lot of room for fact-checking https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 665383002/
Also, when taking credit for unemployment rates, one must consider that many Americans are now working more than one job (and those jobs may not be accurately reflected in the reported rates):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma … b6c43a2a21
Even if Trump was better for jobs and the economy, I could never support him given his authoritarian police state approach to governing. I am confident that if Sanders is elected, freeing up citizens from crushing medical debt and student loan debt would be adequate stimulus for a healthy economy that includes a greater number of American citizens.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archi … e-economy/
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-w … 2019-09-09
I don't get the "authoritarian police state" bit, I am less worried about the police, the IRS, the Fed insinuating its way into my life now, than I was a few years ago.
But I suppose if you watch the likes of CNN or MSNBC and believe any of their drivel, this is the worst police state ever... funny how they can just say things on tv and some people will believe it despite the overwhelming evidence against it in day-to-day life.
Like when the Democrats campaign on how horrible the economy is doing... for who? Illegal Immigrants, homeless drug users and the mentally unstable?
If someone needs a decent paying job, and can't find one in this country that suits them, the problem is with that person.
if they can't/won't relocate, if they can't/won't stay off drugs... whatever it is, there are jobs out there, despite the fact that we are in a global economy and are stuck competing against 'slave-labor' and low wage no-benefits nations for those jobs.
The same issues matter in 2020 that were the issue in 2016... who do you want running the country, who do you trust to handle the economy best...
Despite the hysteria of the last 3 years... there are no "re-education camps" there is no "Police state" military deployment on the streets.
That however could change... Bernie Sanders is all too cozy with things like "bread lines" and "worker camps" and Cuba's wonders of the socialist state. One scary dude IMO.
Or when people say things on the radio like "there's an underground child porn ring underneath this D.C. pizza restaurant" and people believe it or "Sandy Hook was a hoax" or "this will all be over soon". Stuff like that, right? Hard to believe people believe that stuff, right?
Democrats are not campaigning on how horrible the economy is. They are campaigning, as they usually do, on how the benefits of the economy go to a very wealthy few. Actually, I haven't heard them talk about the economy much because it's still chugging along pretty well, so that seems like a dead end to me.
And I completely agree with you about relocating for a job. If you are unemployed and you sit around insisting that the government do something about it but you are unwilling to relocate or re-educate yourself, then that's your problem (though I will say, relocating is not that easy if you have a family or a working spouse, but sometimes it's necessary).
However, couldn't/shouldn't we have said this exact same thing about coal workers? Yet, Trump campaigned on bringing coal jobs back. To me, this seems like exactly what you are talking about, but Trump is the Messiah for bringing back coal jobs, which he hasn't really done. Coal jobs aren't coming back and those workers have known that for years. They have to move and get retrained. Coal jobs will continue to erode because technology is doing more and more.
Not sure if you are comparing Pizzagate and Alex Jones' Sandy Hook comments to my police state comments, Crank, but I'll ask you to clarify before sharing links to shed some light on the "criminal justice" issues in America that people seem to want to keep their head in the sand about.
You are right, it is not easy when you have a working spouse and kids, but I have done it, and did it when we were in debt with hardly two pennies to rub together... because it was necessary for us economically to do so.
We left a state with dwindling job opportunities, rising cost of living, and the worst taxes in the nation to move to a state with improving job opportunities, low cost of living, and no state income tax.
I have heard all sorts of arguments from people who refuse to move, and sit in their situation... from "i've lived here all my life and my family is here" to "they have big bugs and it is always hot down there" when someone wants to make an excuse, or play the blame game, they do so.
And for those that want to make positive changes and try to improve their lives, the opportunity is there if they are willing to make the sacrifice or put in the work or make the move to somewhere new.
We have people walking by foot from South America to make the move to America to find a better life and better work. I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't have the courage or fortitude to do what they need to , to improve their situation for themselves or their children.
The OPPORTUNITY is there to succeed in this country for anyone of any race, color or creed. For some its easier than others, I get it, not everyone is equal... some are smarter than others... some are more physically capable than other... thats never going to change.
I would have loved to have been a NFL football player. I would loved to have made millions... but I didn't have the physical skills necessary to play at that level, poor me, the government should make it so if I want to be a NFL football player I can... they have no right to discriminate against me just because I am not physically ideal for the job.
Opportunity is there, it might be a struggle, a person might have to work jobs they don't want to work... but when people start fleeing this country by the hundreds of thousands a month.. rather than pouring into it by the hundreds of thousands... then you may have a legitimate argument that opportunity is not good here in America.
Some people have a very twisted concept of what is going on in America... just because they can pull up an article from a 'reputable' source that says things are bad... I have lived in the country for over 50 years... I have also travelled more than a typical American outside its borders... things have never been as good as they are now here in America for so many... thats the reality.
Eastward, I was responding to Ken's comments about people believing stupid stuff they hear on TV and the radio. Seems to me that conservatives believe a lot more stupid stuff than Democrats and have far more people serving up crazy hoaxes.
Ken, I think you and I and most Democrats agree on the basic point you're making, even if Democrat politicians pander to these groups more than Republicans.
If you're unemployed and you need a job, you have to be willing to put some effort into a wide variety of solutions. The government provides unemployment (provided you've contributed through other work) for a time, but it's up to the individual to solve the problem, not the government. Very basically, you can't sit on your ass and expect a solution to show up.
I see, Crank. Thanks for clarifying. There is certainly a lot of garbage spewed out on TV and radio (that people believe), conservative and otherwise. Clicks and views have replaced journalistic integrity as a top priority for the vast majority of media outlets.
Well, I've lived under marital law in Thailand and I've lived in communist China and both seemed like less of a police state (granted I wasn't out protesting against the communist party or anything of the sort). True that Trump isn't responsible for our criminal justice system becoming the twisted mess that it is, but he has promoted the darker side of it https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/ … ce/535320/
And no, I don't believe much of what is on CNN or MSNBC (or Fox news for that matter).
If you think the economy is only broken for a small percentage of people that you want to look down on, I fear you may find out the reality of how many people are left out of the "American Dream" when they stop asking to be included politely (and non-violently).
"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.
If you don't think police hunting minorities for sport and killing citizens at a rate that far outpaces "terrorism", well, I'm not sure what point we'd have to reach for you to open your eyes.
I'll take Sanders over Trump's comfort with fascism and admiration of Kim Jong Un any day https://fortune.com/2018/06/15/trump-ki … x-friends/
And if you won't consider my perspective on Sanders, consider Chomsky's: https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chom … movements/
You lost me, your views on what transpires in America is a little off kilter.
This is going on in China... not America:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- … 5b39f223b7
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/chinas- … r-problem/
Forced (slave) Labor
https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-tec … g-brother/
China's Social Credit System (Big Brother)
China's Social Welfare System... not nearly as good as Americas for those in need of it.
The Chinese people are great.
What China has done to transform itself is incredible, laudable.
But it is still a more dangerous place, with less benefits to those in need, than America. As is almost everywhere else int he world, except a handful of smaller nations.
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.
Just a small correction, if I may. Obama was a Kenyan socialist Muslim terrorist posing as an American citizen that wanted to kill granny
I stand corrected.
And let's not forget, "sensible" voters elected a reality TV star who spent years touting birtherism.
They certainly did, didn't they
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … 9zyZHtLcKs
"I think you truly believe "sensible" voters won't vote for Bernie, but look who "sensible" voters elected last time."
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.
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.
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?"
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".
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.
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?
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.
I hear you, but I would qualify that with "some" conservatives.
Perilous times ahead....yes, it seems so.
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.
TRump was elected. You shouldn't be surprised by anything at this point, Gus.
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?
I do get the idea. I just don't see it as being that easy.
Maybe we will get the chance to see.
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.
I do get the idea. I just don't see it as being that easy.
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.
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
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. ;-)
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.
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, 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.
Our Constitution (which clearly defines how Presidents are elected) is "slight of hand", Credence? Are you sure you want to take that path?
There, in American history, have elections since 1789 when, to be fair I should say more 1860 when two parties were clearly established there were 3 times when the winner did not attain the popular vote. The issue is that Trump did not win in a landslide, it was HC's election to lose and she lost it. Typically Blue states flipping for Republicans? You don't see that very often. Trump won only because of the Electoral College, certainly not reflecting a mandate for him.
No, I don't like the Electoral College, It skews results where smaller states obtain unmerited advantage.
But, I accept for two reasons.
1. I accept the need to give the flyover states some voice in the process.
2. It can't be overturned short of a Constitutional Convention requiring 3/4 of the states to sign on which in this political climate is virtually impossible. It becomes a fools errand.
So, as a result, I live with things as they are.
Of course you will live with it - you have no choice. But you also accept it for a couple of reasons, and that's to your credit.
Why then the "sleight of hand" comment? Just a gripe to show discontent with election results? (I didn't see anything about the obvious and completely unethical actions by the DNC to promote the favored candidate in the primaries...)
Truly, Cred, the whole country is more than a little tired about the tears and whining that Trump was elected. Time to let it go and accept what happened.
Slight of hand simply meant that Trump was lucky.
No, I did not like the election results and that is not going to change the day that the election ends. I don't like Trump, but I allow him to have his run.
That fact expressed, does not mean I approve of how the Dems selected the candidate in 2016.
I know people are tired of this, but only the Conservatives want us all to get over it. If things work out, January 20, 2021, I can stop wringing my hands and have the conservatives wring theirs instead.
No, over half the country is tired of being told that their legitimate criticisms of an incompetent, lying, corrupt grifter are "whining."
Okay, Cred, I have already said you might be right about a "rushed the gates" voter turnout typically being a Democrat thing, but your "sleight of hand" reference to the EC is just populist sour grapes.
Who are you going to blame when it turns out that the Independent vote will be the deciding vote?
As I see it, now, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the numbers to clinch the election—without the Independent vote. Even with the EC in play.
We ain't a democracy bud, get over it. If the tables ever turn you will be screaming about the unfairness of that too.
"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...
"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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
I think you are taking a different angle on this than I was, PrettyPanther. I was thinking of success only in terms of success obtained by merit and ability. If we are speaking about the correlation of success and ability in the world in general, I think that link is much weaker. Dynastic wealth propels people to success regardless of ability.
Yes we live in a world where 'Dynastic wealth propels people to success regardless of ability' ... Bush Jr. is a prime example of this, if Bush Jr. had been Sam Smith, he would have become a school janitor, not President.
But we live in a time period where anyone can attain the highest levels of success no matter what their background. Condoleezza Rice, Barak Obama, Andrew Yang are examples of people who did not have Dynastic wealth that did just fine.
Its called a merit based system, a capitalist system, where yes the rich have privileges, but rich families become poor, poor families become rich, over the course of generations, based on the wit, will and ability of the succession of generations.
No system in the world is better at rewarding the doers and thinkers for their contributions than this one.
Yes, Ken, conservative always point to the 1 exception from the 999 samples to make general observations. These were a handful of people who crossed a veritable minefield and were lucky to come away unscathed. And while true equality can not be attained because everyone is not the same, I want to maximize equal opportunity with structural barriers that can be removed, removed.
But, if you really subscribe to Warren's approach, the rich have structural advantages that is the very foundation of income inequity in regards to social class and race. And we know that is quite real and there is no point denying it. The wealthy' privileges is at our expense. America has not reached the point where we all have an equal oppo tunity. Until we do better, I will continue to complain.
So, while you think that we do well, I think we need to do much better. Therefore, the Status Quo is not good enough.
"The wealthy' privileges is at our expense."
That's an interesting statement, as we take from the rich to give to the poorer. Are you sure you don't mean that our privileges are at the expense of the rich? The rich pay for our education, for our roads, for our health care, for our police and other services - all privileges we enjoy at the expense of the rich.
No, Wildeness, we all pay for the infrastructure, while they, the oligarchs, hire accountants to avoid paying the taxes they are supposed to pay.
And you pay the same as the oligarchs - equal dollars for equal benefit.
Those accountants must not be doing a very good job.
A genal consensus of folks that study this stuff says that the top 10% of taxpayers, (those oligarchs), pay about 70% of all income tax monies paid to our treasury. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 3% of income taxes sent to the treasury.
And if you include the wanna-be oligarchs—the top 25% of all taxpayers pay about 85% of all income tax monies sent to the treasury.
So how much do you think "they are supposed to pay"?
"Those accountants must not be doing a very good job."
How can you tell, Gus? Like Trump, they underestimate their property during tax time and overestimate it when borrowing money.
Do you even have a clue what the top 10% really should pay in taxes?
Many of the middle class Republicans are too busy worrying about a low income earning family getting a few extra cents from their payroll taxes next year. They don't have time to worry about things like tax avoidance, and corporate welfare.
I've noticed the same, Don. They don't care a whit about the ultra wealthy using all sorts of loopholes to escape paying millions in taxes--or perhaps billions would be closer--but let some poor person get food stamps to feed their family, and damn....it's unacceptable!
If they are already paying 70% of all income tax revenue, I think that is enough, regardless of what some think they "should" pay.
If they have avoided some taxes, and that money was captured, then wouldn't that mean that 70% would also increase? Just how much of the pie do you think rich folks should pay for? Whatever you think is needed?
For the billionaires, my answer answer is yes...whatever is needed. My reasoning is well explained by taking a look at Eastward's comment
"I'm no longer sure that our system is the best at rewarding the doers and thinkers, but I think we were. I worry we have put that all at risk by allowing a small percentage of billionaires usurp the political system and the concept of freedom itself..."
I'd venture to guess that A LOT of Americans are thinking this way right now. I think we have a duty to see that the billionaires come off their money as their mere existence distorts our representative democracy.
Now, when we start talking about those that make a few hundred thousand or so annually, I think there should clearly be limits on what's expected of them.
" I think we have a duty to see that the billionaires come off their money as their mere existence distorts our representative democracy."
I am not sure we could be farther apart in our thinking hard sun. It appears a line must be drawn. If billionaires are our bane and must be corralled, (come off their money), what about an almost-billionaire?
Is one safe from your thought if they are only worth $900 million? Or is their power to corrupt too great at even $500 million?
As for "whatever is needed," who will you assign the power to make that determination?
And, "their mere existence . . ." Really? Do you understand how that sounds to someone that doesn't hold the same envy you do?
As I see, you mention "those that make a few hundred thousand or so annually," shouldn't be subject to the same 'measures' as those of the billionaires, why is that? Is that your arbitrary line of acceptable 'corruption-free' income? Where does that leave Bernie?
Geesh hard sun. That was a hellava comment.
I would be interested in how he would accomplish that "come off their money" thing. Does it mean simply confiscate it? Take it by force if necessary, while calling it a "reasonable tax on the rich" somehow (everybody knows the rich don't pay their share anyway - it should be an easy sell if couched in the right terminology)?
The only think I can really address here is this "Really? Do you understand how that sounds to someone that doesn't hold the same envy you do?"
Really? Come on man. You think I envy billionaires because they are usurping our democracy?
Do you see how that comes off to someone how doesn't share your apparent love of billionaires?
You presented no real argument other than the notion is ridiculous.
This has nothing to do with envy, and your suggestion that it does, is revealing of your lack of argument on the substance here.
You are right, I don't have much argument on the substance of your comment—as I understood it.
Your comment implies that there is a limit to the degree of success that should be allowed. You offer no conditions regarding how that success was attained before being regarded as dangerous to society. You simply infer that you think there is an acceptable level and anything beyond that should not be allowed. You demonize a group rather than an action.
Doesn't your same thought apply to almost-billionaires with hundreds of millions in wealth? If so, then where is your line drawn, who else should be included in your determination of excess and detrimental success?
Okay huh. So, your only issue is where the line is drawn? Is that really that pertinent to the idea? I did say billionaires..so we could start there. When people hold this much wealth a "free market" becomes impossible anyway. They are buying and selling our politicians and our freedoms. Some "good" billionaires may get caught up, but those say thy need to pay more anyway.
We don't have anything near a free market or free society. Why pretend we do when we start taxing billionaires? I'm an economic liberal and a libertarian when it comes to real life choices. We ALL get caught up in these policies which demonize us. We take advantage of a little help, and we are all a bunch of scum sucking pigs.
Too often, the conservatives want to limit the poor and middle class freedoms but don't want to do anything to the billionaires sitting on money, averting taxes, and buying our politicians.
My only issue is the demonization of wealth and people that have it. And that demonization has been going on since the dawn of humanity.
What should be demonized are the actions, (the problems you mention), that wealth makes possible.
Look where the demonization of wealth leads . . . Your own words are the example; ". . . so we could start there." When the billionaires are reduced to half-billionaires, and the corruption and disruption continue, your logic would be to go after those half-billionaires and make them "come off their money"
Of course, the corruption and disruption will continue, and so it's off to get the quarter-billionaires.
And on and on until we have reduced acceptable wealth to your level of ". . . a few hundred thousand or so annually, I think there should clearly be limits on what's expected of them."
As you can see, I think "where the line is drawn" is very pertinent. I don't think it should be drawn at all relative to wealth, but should be drawn at ground-level for those actions you are blaming wealth for.
I am a Conservative hard sun, but I doubt you will see me supporting any limits on poor and middle-class freedoms. Nor will you see me supporting corrupt and disruptive actions by billionaires either.
Not supporting the taking of wealth from those that earned it to pay for more poor or middle-class freedoms is not the same as limiting those freedoms.
We have to free up money from the ruling class to free up freedom. It's that simple. The where does it end scare tactic is no excuse against for a whole class of people standing up for themselves and their freedoms. If those who earned a billion dollars want to live in a world worth living in, they will pay taxes. The world will change despite the aging hubbers.
And they are paying taxes, 70% of all income tax revenues received.
"We have to free up money from the ruling class to free up freedom. It's that simple."
And that is where I will let this stand.
Of course they do...they are the ones with all the money. All this shows to me is that the wealth gap, which is exacerbated greatly by the fact that the billionaires make the rules, is real. Why would we expect
And that is where I will let this stand. Ha ha..take care.
This is false on the face of it - freedom does not require money. If it did the people that opened the old west were slaves, the "mountain men" of old were slaves and so were Lewis and Clark.
What you are really saying is that you want the wealth that others have worked for because you haven't earned enough to buy the things you want. Whether a yacht or a sandwich, you haven't earned enough to buy it, so want someone else to pay for it.
As far as "where does it end" being nothing but a scare tactic, never forget (or ignore) the words of Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” That you would start with billionaires only means that when that is gone you will progress to the "half billionaires". And when that is gone...
Freedom too often requires an attorney, which requires money. That's just one example.
We've gone over this before Dan about wheter I really care about being wealthy. If you want to make it about that AGAIN, and disregard my thorough explanation about wealth then, I guess there's no reason to discuss this.
I guess you don't remember me arguing that people with low income are often much happier than people with higher incomes. This was a pretty long conversation if I remember right. One in which I even put forth the lyrics to this quaint little tune:
"So with patches on my britches and holes in both my shoes
In my coat of many colors I hurried off to school
Just to find the others laughing and a making fun of me
In my coat of many colors my mama made for me
And oh I couldn't understand for I felt I was rich
And I told them all the love my mama sewed in every stich
And I told them all the story mama told me while she sewed
And how my coat of many colors was worth more than all their clothes"
I know it's much easier to just fall back on the "oh they are just jealous cause others are rich" argument. But, yeah..oh well. Later
I am impressed hard sun. I really liked those lyrics. They describe my life perspective to a tee. Especially my High School years. What are they from?
I mixed with the 'rich kid's clique' because I was a good athlete, but I was never 'one of them'. They had new cars and I had a 10-year-old
car, (but it was a fast one with a "police special" high-performance " motor—wow, after all these years I am still trying to justify myself).
Anyway, your lyrics fit my perspective of life. I don't measure my wealth in dollars.
Dolly Parton, Gus! What are you, a Yankee?
Thanks Randy. I am a Dolly fan, but I didn't remember that one. Your link led to twenty minutes of Dolly video enjoyment.
Good to hear GA. That's Dolly Parton. I grew up on that stuff. My dad listened to old country music after he got home from a long day at the steel cutting plant.
You know. I'm not even that big a fan of Bernie or all out socialism. My problem is I see too much of these "right to work" laws and what not pulling the balance out of wack and throwing our rights out the window. Rights that people fought so hard for and even lost their lives for. It's sad that people are now scoffed at for the suggestion that we should all have healthcare. I also just enjoy poking you older folks now and then. I'll be there soon.
It's an old argument, every nation that had toppled the bourgeoise suffered greatly, and tolerated years of oppressive rule for it.
If you want "the masses" to suffer, struggle and starve, have a revolution that overthrows the 'rich'.
First of all, the true rich will move from the county, the corporations will move, and the highest educated will flee the oppression before it truly strangles the nation.
How the system works allows the rich to have the newest and best technology, the best healthcare, etc. ... But then as those advances become more common and cheaper to make, even the 'poor' get the advantage of it.
Cell phones were only for the rich, until one day everyone had it.
Internet was expensive and only the well off could afford hi-speed internet, now it is everywhere for free, the Library, the coffee shop, on your cellphone.
The rich pay for our civilizations advances in ways that aren't so obvious.
Without them... You have a state bound to regress, while it's people suffer.
Yes it is an old argument. Except I don't think "the masses" really want to topple the middle class or the bourgeoise. In fact, the masses are the borgeouise. I've written some pretty hefty pieces about that sort of history.
However. What do you think happens if "the masses" stop fighting? Do you think the ruling class will stop wanting to rule? They will stop wanting to amass more fortunes? No...they wont. And that is exactly why the middle class must never stop fighting for themselves. They do their job and I'll do mine. I don't think the billionaires are really the scientists on the front lines developing technologies. Though there are exceptions of course. Richard Branson....but the scientists and teachers among us deserve a good battle, not one where they sit down and say "That's just the way it is!"
I won't argue for the hidden ability and intellectual prowess of George W., that much is certain. He's far from the only one to be graced with a leadership role because of his lineage.
Of course, some people, either through merit, luck, or otherwise, make it through the system and become wealthy and successful. Even more hardworking and intelligent people do not.
I'm no longer sure that our system is the best at rewarding the doers and thinkers, but I think we were. I worry we have put that all at risk by allowing a small percentage of billionaires usurp the political system and the concept of freedom itself (things like for-profit prisons are leaving a long flat-line in America's electrocardiogram). Now, it seems if we don't act, neo-feudalism is inevitable.
That is a very real concern you have there, we aren't all that far off from it.
If they can do away with Nation states and Nationalism, and bring the world under full control of the UN, WB, IMF, NWO. Then the mega-conglomerates, the super corporations, and the international banks will be the power brokers and a person will either belong to one of those power brokers (a loyal employee) or will be little more than the cast-off class.
The corporations will take the place of nation states, and there will be corporate espionage and private security forces and gated communities where the corporate elites are guarded from the masses.
Hard to know where technology that is advancing at an almost unthinkable pace today will bring us in just a few short decades.
Agreed, Ken. If corporations can take full control or at least reduce the government to a thin facade (if it isn't already), we'll see an even more extreme separation of the elites and the masses. And of course, the elites will be using/developing whatever technology they can to retain control and with even less accountability than they already have.
I think you are correct that it is more of a facade, here in the "Western World' anyways. In China it works the other way around, the corporations are beholden to the CCP and ultimately the State controls all, in China, the 'thin facade' is corporatism and capitalism.
If you have not seen it already, you will probably find this interesting:
If you are not familiar with Noam Chomsky this is a good way of being introduced to him.
It certainly does work the other way around in China, Ken. When a CEO misbehaves in China, they tend to take a little "vacation" and come back with a new outlook on life.
And Requiem for an American Dream is great (as is Chomsky). It's been a few years and will enjoy giving it another watch. He speaks so nonchalantly about things that I think most people see on some level, but can't articulate or are afraid to (because of the extent of their indoctrination).
No. How do you think that lack affects my thoughts that ability will trump advantage?
Are you proposing that advantage is all that matters?
Can you not imagine a successful student who is successful solely due to advantage falling flat on their face in the real world due to lack of ability?
Aren't you really lamenting poor Joe Poorkid not succeeding because Bif Richkid got to compete in the arena of abilities?
Too bad, so sad, stuff happens. The competition will determine the winners.
Of course, the real world tilts that playing field, and I do accept the reality of what I took to be your inference, but I don't see that thought to be as damaging as government intervention to artificially set the bar by which ability is scored.
Yes. And with those that received a free ride from government.
Neither performed beyond their abilities.
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.
Well, I can't argue with the effect of corporations, (as a symbolic description) dictating politicians and policies. That is a fact of human nature that history well documents.
So, what time is the campfire?
"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?
No. but do you believe that their access to a path for success was all they needed to succeed?
No, but it surely gave them a substantial advantage toward success denied us mere mortals.
What else did they have to offer? Neither are geniuses by any stretch of the imagination, so how did they succeed without help from others?
Damn Ken, you are as bad at sarcasm as I am. Let it go.
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.
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/
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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
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
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?
Ha ha..thanks. I always think people are damned good when they are thinking like me also!
“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.
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!
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?"
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.
"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.
Yep, any sort of help to the people is a Socialist policy. Such as educating our young people and helping the poor. Blasphemy!
Ha...Yeah. I think the majority of liberals could get behind something like this. But, it takes social programs and cooperation to get things done.
Meanwhile, I can see the Republican argument now: "Why should our tax dollars go to train somebody who wasn't smart enough to get out of a dying industry?" Unfortunately, with this attitude, there won't be enough educated and qualified Americans for us to build wealth into the future. Why should those who are already rich care about that though?
That is baloney Cred, and you know it. Job training is not a partisan battler.
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.
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?
Well, Wildreness, it is a progressive taxation principle established early last century. And this is just as sacrosanct as your precious Electoral College.
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.
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
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.
""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.
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):
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.
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.
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surv … ed_Kingdom
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
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.
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).
"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?
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.
And yes, you and Chomsky are all good, Promisem
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?!?!
The change of course does really make me wonder if this is about winning the election at all or if the top priority is building a wall (no pun intended) between the people and the oligarchs. I agree that Biden is more well-liked, but not because of his political record. Perhaps society does still accept ruthlessness more from a man than from a woman.
I'm with you on not understanding the extreme resistance to tax dollars helping fellow Americans. I don't think they understand the positive ripple benefits that come with having citizens whose lives are not resting on a razor's edge. Portugal has also seen immense benefits from ending the war on drugs and redirecting that money toward treatment https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug … alization/
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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?
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."
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."
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.
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/
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
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.
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
I read your article. I saw how the prices of homes have increased and public and private college tuition has risen, it didn't address the increase in wages.
I agree we need to change a system that prays on the young and impressionable.
Not all college degrees are the same. My one cousin's son who has a degree in Electrical Engineering got a job sooner than his sister who had a degree in English.
I'd like to see people realize a college degree doesn't make you smarter than others. It makes you more knowledgeable in a particular field. Getting a degree from a trade school is more likely to get you a high paying job than a degree from many colleges.
I've know some very brilliant people who didn't have a college degree. I know a guy who came here speaking very little English and today is a citizen and very wealthy. He never got a college degree.
So, I agree, the prices of Universities must come down. I would like to see a law enacted that if the graduates of a college don't get employed after a certain amount of time, the college must pay the student back certain portions of the tuition and fees they charged.
I wonder how that would change things.
The universities would only allow the brightest students in your scenario, Mike. And/or the most wealthy...
In the Ukraine things are very different. Everyone is tested each year starting in 9th grade. The top students are offered a place in a university. They pay nothing and are given a living stipend. They are required to live in the dormitories. Poor students are attending classes with students of corporate executives and everyone must meet the same academic standards. Anyone who has grades that go below a certain level are kicked out. Anyone who is a behavior problem is kicked out. This how the soviets did things. It has resulted in a high-level of respect for people with a college education and them being very valued as employees.
If you don't have the academic scores in high school, you can still go to college, but you pay for it. There is no such thing as a student loan. A payment program is worked out with the university. Some people work for a few years and have an account they pay into at the university to pay for their education before they start attending university.
If you want a college education in the Ukraine, you must be motivated.
Do you think a system like this would work in the United States? I don't think it would go over well.
I do think the Ukraine and Russia are smart to test students for a particular venue, but not to the extreme of not allowing those who don't make the cut to attend a university.
Perhaps we can learn from such programs and develop a better system, Mike.
" I would like to see a law enacted that if the graduates of a college don't get employed after a certain amount of time, the college must pay the student back certain portions of the tuition and fees they charged."
Would you put any conditions on the refund criteria Mike?
As Randy mentioned, I think the admittance criteria would drastically change. And in some ways that are contrary to laws already on the books.
I can't think of any scenario where such a law wouldn't do more harm than good.
The article did leave out wages, but according to The Pew Research Center, "in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … r-decades/
I agree that not all degrees are the same and some certainly translate much better into financial gain and also am aware of many cases where trade school graduates can gain higher salaries than 4-year college graduates.
I also agree that a degree doesn't assure that someone is more intelligent. I've met very intelligent and resourceful people that don't have college degrees (and some that will, unfortunately, probably never have the opportunity to attend university).
I would also hold that financial success doesn't indicate intelligence. I've know very smart people who are financially successful and people that I don't think anyone would view as intelligent that reached success through nepotism, connections, or pure ruthlessness.
The idea of holding universities accountable for employment is an interesting one and I would like to see further studies in that direction. My only concern there would be the universities undermining other areas of academia to solely focus on employment.
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.
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.
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.
I'll let Harvard explain:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … -coverage/
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.
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
It did work, for the Insurance and Pharma companies, very well.
I try to bring you back to the root of the problem, you refuse to go there, and then you try to justify your outlook with some article.
The hardcore, irrefutable, unalterable foundation of this Nation is that it is Capitalist and it serves now more than ever, the Corporate and Banking interests above all else.
The politicians' job, those championed by the "liberals" and "progressives" such as Biden and Clinton, are to convince the people that what they are passing is to help the people (Pelosi's infamous "we have to pass the bill first and then you can find out what is in it") when in truth everything they do is to benefit the banks, the corporations, and the billionaires that control them.
Which is why nothing really changed from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama (with Clinton as SoS doing her 'deals' with the Saudis, Ukraine, China)… they were all sell outs, and Congress even more so.
Your articles don't talk about these real issues, the core reason why there will never be "Universal Healthcare". Not from Bernie and not from Biden.
Progressive elitist and disconnected from the very realities they are formulating their thesis and research and articles on, absolutely.
I have had the good fortune in life of dealing directly with state leaders, military leaders, being privy to Corporate, State and Military planning in various stages, at the highest levels.
I have overseen multi-million dollar budgets, I have been responsible for the lives of hundreds, and even today I have more interaction with the 'high brow' society than I need, but having in-laws that work at MIT, and Harvard, and Duke, helps me understand the perspectives of those who come up with the 'solutions' for the 'people'... but they have no clue.
Just like you have no clue about what is going on in hospitals in America, you are reading someone's biased "research" on the issue.
I like to take odd jobs, one such job was working security for a hospital for a few months, getting to see for real how a Hospital works, what goes on in an ER, in a Mental Ward, how the patients act, how many drunk, high, psychotic, suicidal people they have to deal with, day in and day out.
It helped me better relate to my wife, and what she has to contend with, as a registered nurse. It also made me all to aware of why she would never work in a ER. It takes a special kind of crazy to want to contend with that insanity day in and day out.
Even now, in addition to my more serious interests, I'm a security supervisor at a location where I get to see how the 'space industry' really works in todays world, I have a front seat to it all... at least one launch a month, incredible.
I was the NCOIC IC of all SIPR and NIPR comms coming from the 18th ABC and Pentagon to the Div Cmdr of the 101st ABN after 9/11 until after we deployed. I knew more about what was going on than just about anyone but the General himself.
When ARRA was being deployed I was in various meetings with NY DHCR and DOE officials as it was determined how those fund would be deployed in the State.
I sat in briefings when corporate planning and strategy was being reviewed by key representatives from the likes of HESS and CH at the forefront of fracking as they foretold how it would change the dynamics of the energy industry for the next twenty years (this over a decade ago).
I have had a very fortunate life to be able to see so much, to allow me such a perspective based on a wide range of experiences, all over the world.
Real experience trumps tenfold dry data and research by people who have never worked in a hospital in a economically challenged area.
There are various ways of educating yourself, I read thousands of books as a teenager, and then I went out and lived life, I stopped going to school and started learning by living in the real world.
Well... I still have to go to school every now and then, like when I want a new license, or when it is required to hold a position.
But I am well past the point where I trust what someone writes just because it is published in the NY Times...
Another benefit of getting out there and doing... I have watched CNN reports, and read NY Times articles that I knew were outright lies because I was right there in the mix of what they were reporting on.
That was decades ago, they have gotten a lot worse since then... its almost all lies and biased opinions these days. CNN the Criminally Negligent Network.
I'll agree that our government is full of corrupt politicians and that Obamacare was a good deal for insurance companies. Politicians on both sides of the aisle base their decisions on profit motives without much consideration for what is best for the average citizen. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop fighting for universal healthcare and other basic rights enjoyed by citizens of other countries. No U.S. candidate for president is proposing doing away with capitalism. They are only talking about re-prioritizing how we spend our money (ending corporate socialism) and building a strong enough safety net to stop the country from breaking out into revolution.
Well-off people rally against healthcare, food stamps, and the like, yet cower behind the money pit of a militarized police force. The hypocrisy is striking.
Assuming that I don't also have close family and friends that work in the medical field is quite a blind leap (and an incorrect one).
Don't get me started on our leadership bending the knee to Saudi or Israel (or pushing for conflict with Iran). Both Democrats and Republicans are shameless in this department. Trump did go harder after China than Obama, but also made concessions where he stood to benefit. We've got a long way to go to sort out the mess we've created with foreign policy and trade policy.
As for politicians or elite academics creating "solutions", we have a lot of work to do there too and need better people in office. Again, this is something we have to continually fight for.
I agree that MSM has a lot of issues in 2020. Journalism, nearly across the board, has been driven towards clicks and ad revenue over integrity. I don't see that getting better anytime soon, but articles can serve as a good starting point. Biases have to be taken into account.
Of course we learn some things from our life experience, but no matter how broad one's experience is, it is still extremely limited. Reading books and taking a wide variety of positions can certainly be beneficial, especially when they place us outside of our normal comfort zone. Most importantly, we have to remember there is always more to learn and understand.
In the end, I'll keep fighting for the people struggling just to get by and against those who take advantage of their privileged positions to exploit them. Right now, I think the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the corporate-Establishment/military-industrial-complex/prison-industrial-complex and too far away from the people. If we don't swing the pendulum back soon, I think the "white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" as MLK Jr. would put it, will have their comfort disturbed to a regrettable extent.
And there we are, full agreement. The core of the problem is with how our system now operates, the corruption at the core of Congress, the 30+ year politicians that make themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases.
And a culpable MSM that chooses to ignore or cover up the corruption, while character assassinating anyone who attempts to stand up to it.
Of course, the media is nothing more than the 'town crier' for the corporations and billionaires that own them. Which incredibly enough, so many in America can't seem to figure out... the MSM doesn't exist to tell the truth, it exists to push the agenda of who-ever owns and controls it.
Who owns the NY Times? Who owns the Washington Post?
The richest of the rich.
Its an interesting thing, the white self hate and loathing, the constant attack on any 'white' nation or culture, its not just in America, its in the EU as well, and Canada.
Its ultimately why the West is doomed to succumb to China. Yes China may be having all sorts of issues at the moment. But they are one system, one race, with the most people and the most advanced technology, their every effort is to become the dominant and controlling power in the world, and bury the competition.
America is near ready to succumb to such a fate, give it another 10 or 15 years.
It will be the pendulum swinging back, after Trump is gone in 2024, the tide will turn swiftly to giving up our responsibilities and control on the national stage to China who by then will not only be very willing, but equally ready to take the global helm and steer the world in a new direction.
We are certainly in agreement about the core of the issue being corrupt politicians in bed with corporations and mainstream media. The laws are written to benefit the top 1% who make promises to politicians in exchange for support and the American people are left out of the equation (except for the media trying selling them the raw deal with constant repetition).
While there might be white self-loathing, I haven't had the experience of seeing this to much of an extent in the world around me. At any rate, I don't think MLK Jr. can be blamed for that and it's certainly not what he is getting at in that quote. Rather, he's calling out the comfortable willing to put on blinders and refuse to see the less fortunate (I think the heart of the quote works well for class as much as it does race). As the anger of America's less fortunate boils over, even greater division will occur--in stark contrast with the Chinese solidarity you point out.
China has its drastic inequality but people, in their clusters, seem to have more of a concept of unity and moving the group forward. Divisions that do exist are less pronounced with the vast majority of people identifying as Han Chinese.
The Dems had their moment of truth to see if they'd change their ways and put corruption aside to work with Bernie Sanders to loosen the grip of the elites over D.C., but it seems they are instead pulling every punch they can to stop him. If they pit Biden against Trump, in his state of dementia, it's very likely Trump will be in office until 2024. Regardless who is in office by that time, China will be ready for them.
Well, if China triumphs because of their "one race" it is because of their genocide against anyone opposing their regime. They were wiping out Muslims until the coronavirus started doing the job for them. They were putting them in interment camps and separating them from their children (sound familiar?) who were are then subjected to brainwashing.
So you think that by electing another angry old white man, this time one who wants o give away the store will solve American's problems, huh? I don't believe it's that simple. Nor do I believe that Biden has dementia. Even if he does, remember that Nancy Reagan made a good president. Jill Biden is even better educated and more qualified. At least her advisors won't just be reading Tarot cards.
I wouldn't disagree with you on the treatment of Muslims or internment camps in either China or the USA. The numbers of Han Chinese are truly staggering though. Han Chinese are the world's largest ethnic group, making up about 18% of the global population at an estimated 1.3 billion people--mostly concentrated in mainland China where they make up about 92 percent of the total population. In Taiwan they make about 95% of the population and make up 75% of the total population of Singapore.
Is Bernie Sanders angry? Yes. But he's angry for all the right reasons. For generations, we've turned a blind eye to war crimes that have resulted in hundreds of thousands (millions by some estimates) of lives. We have the most extreme poverty of any developed nation, with people suffering without healthcare. We have a brutal and primitive criminal justice system, with crimes, criminals, prisons and the like manufactured for-profits. I'm not too happy about all these things myself.
You are welcome to believe that Biden doesn't have dementia but the empirical evidence is building up. Whatever is going on with him is much more than a stutter. That's not to mention his horrible voting record, treatment of women, and so forth. Jill may be his strongest point. However, even if Biden gets the nomination, I don't think Jill will get her chance. I'm no fan of Trump, but IMO he'll eat Biden alive in a debate.
Yes, Eastward, if I were Bernie Sanders, I would be angry as well. The entire establishment of corporate Democrats are determined to derail him, the will of the people, be damned. Their methods have been sinister and underhanded and I will bet you that they fomented the rift between Warren and Sanders to protect those of the gold plated bottom class.
Bloomberg never intended to go through with any presidential ambition, he spends half a billion dollars just in the attempt to derail progressive candidates.
All this talk of "socialism" is just a lot of rot. Any Control of the oligarch influence and predaTory capitalism is for the Right akin to socialism.
We are going to be "Hillaried" again with a candidate that only offers an alternative to Trump style and personality, but not much else. Who is going to be motivated to get in lines at the polls for the same ole same ole?
We just as well reelect Trump. After all, since People have not progressed enough to see that the corruption is coming from all sides and by doing nothing they are as guilty as the ones perpetrating it.
So which is it, a blue M&M or a Red one?
Trump is so dumb, I will bet that even guffaw Joe can get the upper hand in a debate scenario.
We again allow our principles to be compromised to accommodate what many see as a safe candidate. But because we are so afraid to stand on our convictions, we will lose again.
May be as bad as what happened when Dole ran against a popular Bill Clinton in 1996.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie-s … race-women
An excellent article explaining why and how Bernie is the way to go.
My prospects for the party with Biden as the nominee are not good.
I could be wrong, maybe all the outrage about Trump his followers and policies amount to feigned outrage. America, as a nation, is actually more aligned with Trump (from all sides) than I was led to believe.
Agree with you on most points, Credence. The Establishment, including Bloomberg, are doing everything they can to kneecap progressives and Bernie Sanders. This is their priority, rather than beating Trump. If they can nominate Biden, the oligarchy will continue on as usual (win or lose). I don't see Biden creating nearly enough energy for voter turnout in the general, even if he manages to stumble his way through the debates. He doesn't have strong enough positions on the issues to get progressive or independent attention.
If the Dems wanted to win (which again, I'm not convinced is their priority), they have looked a gift horse in the mouth with Bernie. With half the effort they've put into backing Joe, they would have a stronger candidate against Trump in Bernie. With the issues we see with voting "inaccuracies", app problems, location closings or moves, reports of machines flipping votes, excessively long lines, missing and uncounted votes, etc., we'd fit the criteria we use to intervene in other countries elections.
I won't allow my principles to be compromised to the point of voting Biden. If he's the candidate, I view it as a loss regardless.
Eastward, can you not imagine that Sanders was a step too far for the typical Democrat voter? Is it incomprehensible that the Sanders' Progressive voice is not the voice of the Democrat base?
I can understand very Progressive voices feeling as you do, but I think you are mistaken to place the blame on party machinations rather than the voice of the Democrat base.
I think you are attributing the vocal voice of a minority as the voice of the majority—if only there weren't nefarious forces trying to drown out your minority voice.
As a non-Democrat, looking in from the outside, that is how it appears to me. You didn't win so you are claiming foul.
GA, if things were going differently with the elections, I would give you that. However, polls show immense support for policies like Medicare 4 All, exit polls are beyond the UN's margins of error for suspected fraud or election interference, 44 hard drives of uncounted votes have been uncovered in Dallas County, closed polling locations and moves, the Iowa app debacle, and the list goes on. While you may think I'm overestimating support of Sanders, I think you are underestimating the machinations of The Establishment and their vehement defense of the oligarchy (and their ability to enrich themselves due to deals and promises made while in office).
I can certainly understand on one hand, people seeing it as claiming foul because of falling behind (we'll know more on this once all the votes are actually counted). On the other hand, people all around the world are watching and wondering what in the hell is going on with our election chaos. The real question is not whether or not things have gone awry, but to what extent (and if the election is skewed accordingly).
I would only disagree with your Exit Poll thought. I have never believed they could be anything more than an indication of direction—never a semi-accurate measure of actual votes. So the margin of error thought doesn't work for me.
I hadn't heard of the Texas harddrive story and I don't see the "App" problem as anything more than a glitch. I don't think it affected the actual vote tallies. *shrug*
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the semi-accuracy of exit polls, GA. But when an obviously biased party is controlling the results, I think it's a starting point to identify deeper issues.
Here's the Texas thumb drive story, if you are interested:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-BB10SAMK
The story also contains a link to excessive lines and here's some background:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … res-voting
As for Iowa, even the app thing was a glitch, I think it's common sense that any company with financial ties to a candidate can't be the company to produce the vote reporting app (not that our government isn't permeated with conflicts of interest).
That's just the tip of the iceberg, but will leave it at that for now. By the look of my Twitter feed, there will be a new array of machine, excessive line, and other problems to explore going forward.
Cred, do you really believe the choice of Sanders is the "will of the people"?
It doesn't seem to be the will of Democrat voters. You may believe that it is because the 'party machine' has its thumb on the scale, but Super Tuesday seems to say otherwise.
I don't think the party had a crystal ball that said they needed to start Project Anti-Bernie before those results were in. Maybe now yes, but prior to that, I think they still held out hope for Warren.
I agree that the party may now be covertly anti-Bernie, but I don't think they were prior to Super Tuesday, which means the Democrat voters made their own decision. Bernie was too far left for mainstream Democrats.
ps. I will take the Red M&M. It is the truth vs. the Blue M&M's status quo.
GA, my problem are the lengths the corporate Democrats are willing to go to win, the majority supporting Sanders is irrelevant from their ultimate objective. For them, that cannot be the outcome, regardless. I just don't want to see another situation of superdelegates and sabatoging of Sanders when he wins fair and square.
If Biden is the choice, so be it, but there better not be any skullduggery involved.
The point is that neither MM is acceptable, let's get a different kind of candy. The difference is only cosmetic.
It appears we just disagree on the "the majority support Sanders" point. I didn't see that in the Super Tuesday results. Iowa might be the first glimpse that his support wasn't the majority of Democrat voters.
No, we don't disagree, the results are the results, I cannot deny that. Why what I saw in 2016, I could consider an aberration, 2020 confirms that the Democratic party is just another extension of the current status quo, although often times cleverly concealed.
As usual, I will have to settle for half a loaf.
That sounds like a hint of pragmatism. Is that allowed in the Progressive's camp?
It is allowed, but progressives operate from a higher standard in the pursuit of justice and fairplay. So, you can both be pragmatic and be progressive at the same time.
Pragmatism mean simply being determined to get results what ever it is that is defined as the goal, and doing whatever it takes to get there. A step or two in the right direction in this political milieu is pragmatic enough rather than standing still or moving backwards..
That's my opinion, anyway
"I'm no fan of Trump, but IMO he'll eat Biden alive in a debate."
It is just a thought, but, other than Trump's base, I don't think Pres. Trump has a chance in a debate against Biden.
By that, I mean that no matter what the outcome of a debate, Trump's base will see him as the winner, but relative to facts and performance, I can't see Trump winning. I am not a supporter of Biden, but I can't see Trump having any debate authority beyond name-calling.
Of course, I may be wrong, but he hasn't shown that talent yet.
My thought on this is that Trump is at his best when he's being a bully and a "class clown". If Biden loses his train of thought and gets confused on the debate stage, which seems extremely likely at this point, he'll be a sitting duck and Trump will not hold back like his Democratic peers have. While Trump is the king of falsifications, Biden certainly has his share that will come to light in the debate as well. There's his arrest story, the falsified silver star story, his academic record, civil rights history, his '88 campaign plagiarism scandal, support for the Iraq War (which he tried later to falsely claim he opposed), etc. That's an awful lot of baggage for on candidate to carry.
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.
The Intercept on Joe Biden:
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/09/for … dens-lies/
Ouch! A debate attack points list for Trump.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
by Eastward 3 years ago
I came across this article, written by an author who initially was not a Bernie Sanders supporter. "If moderate Democrats are serious when they say their only concern is beating President Donald Trump, they should get used to the thought of backing Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.If you believe...
by Credence2 3 years ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-20 … ting-storyPlease watch the video and tell me what it is that Trump is talking about?
by Credence2 7 years ago
Underground Railroad Syndrome (URS): Unfortunate tendency for African-American people to allow themselves to 'be led' based from a state of unsubstantiated fear and panic.I have the utmost respect for Clinton supporters, as most have completely valid reasons for providing her with her support. (But...
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
His message speaks of an unfair system focusing on the elite and powerful. Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who...
by cfin 7 years ago
If Trumpsters knew that Trump as President would result in a third World War and catastrophe, if there was a sure way to show, is it safe to say that many of them would support him anyway?Knowing then, that if they voted for someone else, they could help keep peace in the world, would they vote for...
by ahorseback 6 years ago
The failure to connect was with the working man , Bernie said ! So just who is supposed to be surprised by that revelation . But then ,why would an organization of absolute entitlement promotion ever connect with the people who have to pay for that...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|