If you dig a bit deeper, I think it would make a lot more sense to do everything possible to keep a dangerous guy who incites hatred out of the office. Worse, he's a dangerous man that can't handle an ounce of criticism, he's silencing/slapping lawsuits on anybody he doesn't like. The path to tyranny has long been documented as one that tries to shift the narrative/silencing the press. I'm sorry man, it is just completely illogical to think that Hilary/Bernie/Cruz would be worse. You can say that you dislike them enough on a personal level to not vote for them over Trump, but based on history and what either candidate has shown so far everything points to the opposite direction of what you are saying. Lastly, not voting is the worst thing you can do. You have a say in how this country should be run (regardless of what people say), and you need to exercise that right
Doesn't matter it is impossible for Sanders to win the nomination since there are not winner take all states
For me it's like this. 1. Any Republican not named Trump. 2. Hillary. 3. Independent candidate. Not voting for either Trump or Sanders. If I HAD to choose one of those, it would be Sanders over Trump.
Trump is the embodiment of special interest groups, runs a risky business dependent on government infrastructure, permits and public promotion, specializes in products that reinforce legally ambiguous activities or cater to a narrow social class.
I don't have as bad an opinion of Hillary Clinton as some of the Democrats here, whether they consider themselves liberal, progressive, or conservative, and yes, folks, there are conservative Democrats - our state had several conservative Democratic House members before Tom DeLay's out of the cycle bastardization of the redistricting process here in Texas. They were typically in Republican majority districts and were well liked by their Republican majority constituents, who agreed with their conservative fiscal policies and their progressive social inclinations. Those Republican majority districts were deliberately changed to get rid of those Democratic congressmen, just as that redistricting deliberately made majority Democratic districts as few in number as possible, and primarily Black and/or Latino in makeup. The state GOP wanted the Texas Democratic Party to be seen as something it is not - a political party made up primarily of Blacks and Latinos. The state GOP was/is consciously making an effort to paint the Republican party as the "White Party" just as they continue their effort to paint the state Democratic Party as the "party of the Blacks and Hispanics." Sometimes the truth can be difficult to believe to those who haven't been paying attention. Again, I don't dislike Hillary as much as some of my fellow liberal Democrats. I don't make knee-jerk comments about her supposed "corruption," for example, and find it fascinating to read some of those comments by Democrats who, possibly without realizing it, are repeating the same crap the national Republican Party has been putting out about her since Bill was elected President of the United States and governed during one of the most prosperous periods in modern American history. Yeah, some of you are doing the business of the GOP for them. I get that there are real political differences between Bernie and Hillary. My own personal politics are far closer to Sanders than Clinton. What I would like to add to the discussion is this comment. One can criticize the opposition during the Democratic primaries without lowering oneself to level of the mouthpieces of the extremists of the GOP. In my humble opinion. An example? Bernie Sanders himself. He could take cheap shots at Ms. Clinton. He's certainly had ample opportunity to do so, yet he's largely refrained, as has Ms. Clinton while campaigning against Mr. Sanders. Compared to the bloodbath currently being waged by the Republicans, the Democratic primaries have been very civilized, very polite. That's hugely important, because I fully expect Hillary and Bill Clinton to ardently support Bernie Sanders if he pulls off the upset and gets the nod, just as I fully expect Bernie to campaign hard for Hillary if she gets it. The Republican Party has given us a gift. They have two front runners that will be a disaster for the GOP in the general. Democrats and the Democratic Party will have to work really, really hard to blow this election. Let's not do that, OK? Thanks in advance.
I can't vote for a socialist. I also can not vote for anyone who supports murdering babies. If it Trump vs. Sanders, I will let the chips fall where they will. We are totally screwed either way.
every president since FDR is a socialist, whether they are providing welfare for human beings or multi-national corporations (which is actually kind of fascism). and a fetus aint a baby.
I beg to differ on both points. Although Obama with his unabashed socialism and his crony capitalism does fit your argument.
Cml won't answer, either because he doesn't know what a socialist is, or because he does know, and knows his answer will make him look stupid.
52%??? Well some other country will enjoy all of the ultra wealthy leaving the USA rather than lose over 52 cents on every dollar.... Then where will the money come from so mediocre and mildly interested kids can go to free college; while receiving food stamps and further aid, all so they don't have to work. When the wealthiest of the wealthy move along it all falls apart or the rest see their taxes increase. Really lets reward mediocrity.
Those rates look reasonable to me, putting aside what Sanders intends to do with the taxes raised. If "the wealthiest of the wealthy" want to split because they have to pay 52%, you know what I'm going to do? Wave bye-bye.
First, it's not about staying or leaving, since U.S. taxes income sourced from abroad anyway. Second, those who do not want to pay U.S. taxes have already given up citizenship/PR. This may accelerate that trend. We'll see.
No one in that bracket who isn't a complete idiot is going to actually pay 52%. Their accountants will simply write off more business expenses. Back when the top marginal rate was 90 (yes, it was that high back in the "good old days") do you think any of those business magnates were paying 90? Of course they weren't. The actual revenue to the Fed would increase in this scenario, but really what this increase does is incentivize re-investment into your business. This.
