This comment by bigtexxx as most of his other comments every made can best be described as: Spoiler A Superficial analysis and not compelling Feel the irony
The type of people supporting the clown show we see in the republican debates...are clowns themselves. Little substance, all talk, all hate, little action.
+1 Rep'd. They actually represent the Right quite well as a matter of fact. You can add the fact that they are in a constant state of denial to that list.
Agreed. Paul is far from a Populist and over time has become even less of one. The truth is he doesn't really know what he is. He has changed his positions on a number of issues numerous times.
So in your world when someone says they have a lack of interest in something you respond with "Yes you do!! Otherwise you wouldn't have told me that you don't". You must be a real charmer with the ladies, lol.
I'll address this. The pendulum of American politics has been swinging right for 30 years, we've moved far away from the melting pot in the middle of the political realm. Corporations and moneyed individuals have used lobbyist, campaign contributions, PAC money and a national propaganda campaign to vilify some of the nation's most positive institutions like unions, social security and Medicare, the progressive income tax, governmental regulation and oversight and peace movements. Some of the difficulty countering this 'fascism' is the fact that the moneyed side can pay to have workers to work against their own interest. It's much tougher to get people work against the juggernaut, in their own interest, when there is little money in the short-term for their efforts. What people can do is vote for a candidate that counters corporate interests when one is available. After 30 years of gerrymandering, scare tactics and an astroturf insurgency, no one thinks anything will actually get done in Congress, anything, much less radical changes in government. Mr. Sanders will receive as much resistance as Mr. Obama. But having the bully pulpit as an opposition voice does at least balance the power scales a bit and keeps some once sacred American ideals in the political discussion. I think it is a dire need but the at the very least you would have to say it is a healthy balance of power. Corporate capitalist are like sharks, their nature is the relentless pursuit of profits and the welfare of the American people is only an interest insomuch as to keep them viable enough to buy what they are told. It is in the interest of The People to vote for Mr. Sanders. I assume you are one of us.
i would love LOVE to see the IQ scores of democrats and republicans in the senate/congress. seriously it would be very interesting to see the results.
I'm going to bet that a large portion of Republican legislators pander to their voters rather than actually believe in the rhetoric they spew. The stupid **** these Republican candidates say tells me a lot more about the Republican voter base than the actual candidates.
from what i understand on here is that even though the economy was in collapse when obama took office. the unemployment % has declined considerably during his 7 years in office, but that does not matter because of the participation rate (%). even though keeping in mind is that % rate rose gradually through clinton's 2 terms and started dropping already throughout bush's 2 terms back to pre clinton levels. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet and then started an even more precipitous decline when the banking crisis hit the U.S. Ignoring also the fact that the participation rate in the U.S. is still higher than the U.K., Japan, Germany, and many other developed countries. so does the deficit dropping not matter at all?? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era , http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/us-budget-deficit-dips-to-8-year-low/story-e6frg90f-1227571071272 does the stock market rising to record levels not matter either?? https://www.google.com/finance?cid=983582 change the graph to 10 years. what would have had to have happened for everyone to consider obama a success economically? and what would have had happened to the economy to have considered bush a failure? because with the above information in the links i have a hard time understanding where people are coming from.
You would need an alternate universe where Obama was elected first and then Bush was elected after. You can't go off a linear timeline and ignore world events. Its a terrible argument and a poor debate discussion. You could put the strongest leader after 9/11 and they would have still struggled to keep the events that unfolded after under control. After 2008, you could put a mediocre leader in place and still have much better results than the years from 2004-2008. These would be fair discussions: -If the US did not invade Iraq and occupy Afghanistan, would the world economy be better off? Would we have any further significant terrorist attacks and would global terrorism be contained? (note both parties were responsible for these actions) -What measures could have been taken to prevent the real estate crash? (again, note both parties were complicit) Obama didnt do a bad job with the economy. I dont think many people would argue against that. However his tenure was built on a much better stability of world events. You could argue that Bush, leading the charge of war, along with most Americans, help exacerbated the situation.
So which Democratic candidate wants the government to own the means of production? Oh wait... You meant it the colloquial sense.
You are arguing that we need a parallel earth to run the test, and there is merit in that. But then you argue that you know the answer by saying what a mediocre person would do from 2008 onward. We have no idea, which the first part of your post admits. We do know that many nations recovered in a much more paltry manner and most of those nations embraced austerity. For what it's worth. But anyway, I agree with the first part of your comment, especially the "It's a terrible argument and a poor debate discussion" just in general for the thread.
You made a fine post, Dubious, and I couldn't disagree more. I also couldn't disagree more with Nook, with all due repect to both of you. I like Bernie. I agree with a lot of what Sanders says. Having said that, I won't toss my vote into a dumpster by giving that vote to a fine person who has no chance of being elected. Unlike Nook's absurd comment about voting for any Republican, even dead ones, if Bernie gets the Democratic nod, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination of the Democratic Party. What I won't do is vote in the primary for a fellow who has no chance of winning the general. Holding the presidency is the only thing between a Congress likely controlled by the GOP and a far-right Republican president packing the Supreme Court with right wing Republican extremists, along with all the other Federal lifetime judicial appointments that need to be filled now due to GOP extremists in Congress blocking Presidential appointments, and those future vacancies that will need to be filled by the next president. I've made "statement" votes in the primary before that were tossed into the political winds. Remember McGovern? That's an example of what we'll end up with if enough people decide that they care more about the man and standing up for a liberal agenda than they do about holding the White House. In that case, a second term for Dick Nixon in a landslide. So I'll vote for a middle of the road progressive named Hillary Clinton instead of the guy who more closely conforms to my own political beliefs. I won't hesitate to hold my nose and cast a ballot for her. Why? Because I think she will win if she gets the nomination and this next election is that important.
Nooks supposition was about Bernie being the Democratic nominee. My case was for rational voters to decide to balance the state of political power by electing Bernie over whomever the Republican nominee was. Ms. Clinton was not an option. But of course thanks to the electoral college and living in Texas, it makes no difference whom we vote for. Any vote we make for a national office is symbolic. My votes for Mr. McGovern and John Anderson were as effective as my vote for the Democratic nominee will be this time. I usually throw my vote to the Green candidate or the Socialist in State elections so they get at least one.
