That's why Bernie is the only one with a positive favorability rating in the whole election. Bernie has that appeal. Trump has it a little bit, but while he's not funded by corporations, he himself is a corporation. That would be a silly change, to go from being controlled by corporate mindset to actually electing the most corporate minded human on earth.
Bernie is still a politician and has been controlled and will continue to be controlled by the money that backs him. I said he had that appeal but I didn't say that it wasn't all BS. It doesn't change what I was trying to say, I think that it is good to see Americans showing their distaste for politicians with actual votes instead of tweets and forum posts.
So if money is what controls, and Bernine's money is 100% from individuals, then he is going to be controlled by the individuals who gave him the money. Meanwhile, I think you're suggesting Donald Trump is not going to be accountable to any of the people funding him. Do you see how one is a democratic process from beginning to end and the other is not?
I hope you don't think I'm going to defend Trump here. I'm not going to agree that Bernie is somehow more a part of a democratic process based where his funding comes from either. If the citizens of the US vote Trump president that is our system being "democratic".... frightening, but it should speak VERY LOUDLY to Washington.
Sorry I have to disagree here. The process of voting a person into a seat is not what constitutes democracy. Democracy doesn't stop once that person becomes POTUS. What you're talking about is an election. Democracy is much more than that. Democracy is when people have enough information and ability to investigate the candidates, the person in the seat is controlled by the people, when the person in the seat prioritizes what his/her citizens want, also consider implications from supreme court and congress, etc. What I should've said in my earlier post was that Bernie would be a more Democratic president than Trump. I'm not trying to say Trump being elected into office would be any less democratic than previous presidents being elected into office.
If you believe that Bernie's ideas and his desire to mold our country into his vision(men and women in this country have died fighting against that vision IMO) of what it should be is somehow any more democratic than Trump I don't know what to say. Bernie's ideas are further on the fringe than any other candidate and his ability to do the will of the people would be very limited based on the fact that VERY few people think like Bernie.
I don't think that's totally true. It's true for SOME of his views, maybe, but for things like: * the middle class is being destroyed in America * the American dream (hard work leading to a nice life) is on life support * money has too big of an influence in our politics * politicians represent their donors and special interests much more than their constituents I would bet more than 50% of Americans agree with those points.
Really, glynch, is there nowhere you won't go in support of your candidate? The one thing I'll give you is her weak response to the coup in Honduras. You have a problem with the overthrow of that terrorist, Muammar Gaddafi? The man behind the bombing of the jumbo jet filled with innocents over Scotland? I don't. Does that make me a "neocon?" What happened afterward wasn't predictable, unless one is using hindsight. Syria? The President should have listened to her. He should never have made his "red line" declaration if he didn't intend to do anything if it was crossed. The democratic coup in Ukraine? Are you against democracy now? You support Putin's man, who was anti-Europe, pro-Russian hegemony? I find that difficult to believe. Hillary Clinton is "just a bit more moderate than Cheney?" That's what caused this post from yours truly. How absurd can you be? Pretty absurd, evidently. Then there is this jewel of an outright lie (forgive me for correcting your grammar), "Hillary is worse than Obama for sure on foreign policy (better than you, who like perpetual war). I have one response to your comment aimed at me. **** you.
Regime change. In each of the countries you mentioned, it has been an abject failure, the fallout of which has killed over 1 million people and displaced many more. Using the fact that Gaddafi and Hussein are monsters to justify the decision to destabilize Iraq and Syria is a fallacious argument. I think you know this. The fallout from these decisions wasn't predictable unless we use hindsight?? You can't be serious. Apparently you haven't seen Sander's speech in Congress expressing his reasons for opposing the Iraq War. Look it up and watch it. That's why I laugh every time I see someone pointing out HRC's so-called "edge" in foreign policy. What would've work far better than "experience" is something called common sense. Watch Sander's pre-Iraq invasion speech for some of it. What's unbelievable is that HRC made the same "mistakes" years later in both Syria and Libya. I qualify the word mistake because I don't actually believe they were. I believe the intention was to get the instability we have today. Fear works. Letting someone like ISIS form and exist works - its been instrumental in shaping this entire hemisphere's current attitudes towards the Middle East. What's really frightening to me is HRC's recent speech to AIPAC. God help us if this is the path forward in the Middle East. There can only be one solution to the ME problem if this is the path we as a nation take. Genocide. Would you be in favour of deposing China's government? They are essentially terrorists against their own people and yet we do (albeit one-sided in their favor) business with them every day of the year.
Progressivism is altruistic. If "the money" behind it is interested in promoting the general welfare and the advancement of civilization why would that be bad? You can always look at who benefits from any political movement, like the anti-tax sentiments of the 'average citizen' tea party to see why they are supported. The benefit to the wealthy is more evident that whatever the benefits to ..whom? Soros? Maybe the selfish self-interested just can't perceive that some men just want to see the world improve.
A president's job is not to mold the country into his vision, it's to mold the country into the citizens' vision. That's where the problem lies with Trump, and where the lost opportunity lies with Bernie. FYI, American men and women have died equally for the ideas Bernie is espousing too. Bernie's ideas are nowhere near fringe. Bernie is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating. He is leading in some polls nationally now. He has the highest supporter turnouts and broke the historical record for donations from number of candidates. You can't seriously think few people think like him. Realistically speaking, there are few who think like Trump because Trump is a rich man who received a lot of money from his dad and has an average record on the business front. That's not Americans. There are less than 1% of Americans like Trump. There are huge swaths of people who think like a guy from a poor neighbourhood who actually struggled his way to the top and lives a relatively modest life now at retirement age. ****, half of Hillary's supporters support her just because they don't think Bernie's thoughts can come to fruition because of people like Donald Trump. Consider that dynamic for a second. And that's why Bernie has been whooping Trump in every head to head poll for a while now. These ideas used to be fringe among the huge majority of Americans, but times are hard on those people, crisis keep hollowing out their lives and shovelling money to the top. Money is not unlimited, there comes a point where too much money has been shovelled to the Trumps of this world, and people start changing. People have changed. I agree with you that these people voting for Bernie would NOT have voted for him just 4 years ago. However, the tipping point has been reached where the childish red scare commie bs is no longer effective and people are learning that these ideas are legitimate and they're beginning to understand why the domestic policy of the government has been to scare people away from these ideas. It's because these ideas are as legitimate as those previously shared by Americans, but just happen to serve a different segment of the population. A quick look at the average age of voters for Bernie tells all. This is a 100 year old man who is a rockstar among youth. Unfortunately, semi-conservatives like Hillary and everyone on the right have a voter base who are more likey to turn their support into a trip to the ballot. That's the fundamental issue for Bernie, the voting system is really ****ty and so people with voting experience and people who have shorter term dreams are more likely to come out and vote. I believe only 7-8% of eligible young voters are voting vs something like 40% of people over 40. That's insurmountable but please don't believe this media narrative that there is a congruence between what American voters THINK and what end up happening. The weak correlation between those two things needs to be fixed, for the sake of you guys getting what you want out of your government.
It is nice of you to attempt to respond for my friend, glynch, with whom I actually share a lot of political beliefs, something he is choosing to ignore because I don't agree with him about everything. I don't agree that it is necessary to vilify someone who has been a Democrat of good standing for decades, who is a leader of substance and deep experience, and has run an excellent national campaign before against the President in 2008. A campaign that fell short, but a campaign that generated huge support among a large demographic of Americans, falling short, but not by much. A candidate that then got behind the President and strongly supported him. A candidate who was attacked for many years by the Republican Party as first lady, as a United States Senator, as Secretary of State, and during the years between all of it. Attacked viciously. Attacked in a similar fashion that some "Democrats" are attacking her today, doing heavy lifting for the GOP in the general, something I find deeply ironic. Yes, that Hillary Clinton. The Hillary Clinton running again for the nomination of the Democratic Party, after supporting and working for President Obama during his two terms. Forgive me, but I am awaiting glynch's reply. I am particularly interested in his statement, after I corrected his grammar, that "Hillary is worse than Obama for sure on foreign policy (better than you, who like perpetual war)." Something only a dishonest, unadulterated b*stard would say, in my humble opinion. Perhaps I misunderstood glynch. I don't think so.
So, according to this Vox/Tax Policy Center calculator, Bernie wants to raise my taxes by $18,000. And no, I'm not one of those evil Wall Street millionaires either. Yikes. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016
when you include corporate and excise tax assumptions the calcs get pretty theoretical. Curious how Bern does in Washington today. He should do well....but IMO even a 60% win is just holding serve.
huge win? Give hope his campaign is not dead yet. Possibly even starting to feel better. Not pushing up the daisies. Not expired and gone to meet its maker. Are you seeing early results?
