Sanders & Trump: Whose Candidacy Should be Taken More Seriously?

Like the wise man said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

As far as Sanders being a socialist, look at some issue polls, with no politics or parties attached or inferred, and see how his policies line up with what the general public says they want/like.

 

I don't think it makes his candidacy any more serious but Jesse Ventura has said he would seriously consider being Trump's running mate if asked. He said he's been Trump's friend for a long time and it would really piss of the Republicans.

For the record Ventura also had some praise for Bernie Sanders saying he and Trump are running like he (Ventura) did.

 

Yeah, I think the difference is that numerous socialist stance on issues or in line with the general public, but it depends on who frames the presentation of those issues.

If Bernie is able to portray his position on the issues, they will often align with the population of the U.S. If others portray them as behooves their own agenda then people will be against it.

 

What did he say?

 

All lives matter

 

I thought O'malley said that.

 

I don't know how serious Trump is. He's ran many times in the past and always seem to be a media sensation (although, this is probably the most coverage he's ever gotten). The only people who run this often are third party candidates (Perot, Nadar etc.) and people trying to build up their brand. Trump is here to rattle the cages, and maybe get a nice fat TV deal. The guy's not a politician- never has been. He's a billionaire who makes money by selling himself as a brand. This is just few advertising.

Sanders, on the other hand, has a pretty strong following among pockets of the Democratic party. The sort who didn't like Hilary in '08 for not being left enough. What worries me is that Sanders could very well be the Democratic VP nominee, because the candidate field for the Dems is so weak. You've got Hilary (who will likely get the nomination), Sanders, and...Joe Biden (?). I'm being dead serious when I say I can't even name another democratic primary candidate. This is probably the weakest the party has looked since the 1980s.

This is honestly one of the most confusing elections I've seen (granted I haven't seen many). Statistically, in US politics, it's practically a guarantee for the other party to take over the White House after two terms (the exceptions being George HW Bush following Reagan and the oddity that was FDR). There was literally no way for the GOP to screw this up, and instead the party looks fractured as hell. The Democratic party, as I noted before, doesn't look in much better shape either. I hope (for everyone's sake) that the legit candidates on both parties come out to play in 2020 for midterms, because otherwise this country has a serious, serious problem.

 

The people on here that say Sanders is a dork and says crazy things should bring us some examples of what you are referring to rather than just vague references. I think if you look at his positions, and you can get a pretty good sense of them just by looking at his Twitter quotes, you'll have a hard time arguing your point. For a majority of the people he wants better, cheaper health care, safer banking structure, less violent international policies, expanded voter participation, affordable college, increased infrastructure investment, less incarceration for non-violent crime, livable wages, campaign finance reform, renewable energy expansion and reduction in greenhouse gasses... serious real stuff that can't be flippantly dismissed.

 

Like what? lol from a guy with your history on racial matters on the bbs

 

This is great news for the Ted Cruz.

 

Until Sanders actually starts proposing to nationalize major industries he's a Socialist in name only. Sanders' platform is on the left side of the spectrum but not really Socialist.

Then again as shown with how many people call Obama a Socialist most Americans don't really know what Socialism is.

 

I've always wondered why The People don't run some of their own industries and either fund the government from reasonable profits or run them as non profits. Things that have to run as quasi-monopolies anyway and use eminent domain powers would be candidates, like power generation and internet access. I think we should own the production of the most popular generic drugs so that they are provided at no profit. especially to the VA, Medicare and Medicaid recipients. There shouldn't be a profit motive in military production.

 

I think Sanders is very likely. Young people control the election and he seems to have there support.

 

Wow such a simple definition of socialism. Hey Stalinists and right wingers do agree with you, however.

 

I rarely post on racial matters.

Pointing out your disastrous love of Chavez and what it did to the Venezuelan people isn't a racial thing

 

Huh? Socialism by definition is cooperative ownership of the means of production when applied to a nation level that would be state ownership.

What do you think Socialism is?

Do you agree with Tea Partiers that the ACA is Socialism then?

 

Hey, you sort of got it when you seem to note that it does not have to be applied at the national level.

Cooperatives for instance. Also most socialists after Stalin do not oppose privately owned small businesses ertainly at the level of the family farm or mom and pop operation.

The first definition of socialism that comes up with googling "definition of socialism" is
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+of+socialism


So it is not only ownership, though at times that might be the way to go, but regulation also. One socialist economist I liked described his belief that a market economy is ok as long as you interject at two points. 1) You always have to determine how the profits are distributed as it inevitably winds up in a small group. and 2) At times you have to determine what is to be done. E.g in WW II the US Gov mandated that the auto companies switch from passenger cars to tanks and jeeps.

As an aside this will clearly need to be done with the climate change. It is moronic to think that we can solve it with the same old letting a few capitalists decide it based on how they can maiximize their profits quarter by quarter.

 

By that definition, capitalism is socialism.

 

Orwell?

 

Well you are trying to be flippant, but in a weird way that is why Bernie Sander's socialism is so popular.

Well for sure Bernie's socialism is far from the type of capitalism pushed by "libertarian" conservative types of which 90% are backing Republicans.

Hey I could support "capitalism" with say a 90% top marginal rate on incomes above say $5 million per year, 99% inheritance tax on billion dollar estates, a welfare state like Norway or more advance, e.g free or near free college tuition, national health care, a $100 cap on individual contributions to elections, $15 minimum wage indexed to inflation, stiff financial penalties for interfering with the right to form a union, workers on the boards of all larger companies, restrictions on billionaires owning all the major media etc.

This would provide more of an equal opportunity to achieve and prosper.