Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to mention that he seems to be the only genuine and honest person in American politics right now. Clinton is a careerist establishment figure who changes her opinion when it suits her and has too many skeletons in her closet - you couldn't trust her to do anything. All the Republican candidates are, well, Republican. Rubio seems to be closest to 'moderate' and would be the least objectionable choice. Cruz is by far the worst - a regressive evangelical who wants to take America back in time 100 years.
Not to mention that he seems to be the only genuine and honest person in American politics right now. Clinton is a careerist establishment figure who changes her opinion when it suits her and has too many skeletons in her closet - you couldn't trust her to do anything.
I don't think Clinton is that much worse than a typical politician. Her positions have been about typical of a mainstream Democrat, maybe even somewhat more liberal than average. She was a senator from New York for eight years, her voting record was rather consistent, her campaign statements do often sound like pandering, she's not good at being an inspiring figure.
Bernie Sander is honest and to me his heart is in the right place, but some of his ideas are poorly thought out and too simplistic; the best defense is that the'd appoint people who know what they're doing.
Not to mention that he seems to be the only genuine and honest person in American politics right now. Clinton is a careerist establishment figure who changes her opinion when it suits her and has too many skeletons in her closet - you couldn't trust her to do anything. All the Republican candidates are, well, Republican. Rubio seems to be closest to 'moderate' and would be the least objectionable choice. Cruz is by far the worst - a regressive evangelical who wants to take America back in time 100 years.
Indeed, Clinton is a not two-faced, but multi-faced crook. Still, Clinton would keep the status quo in foreign policy, while Trump would alienate himself from the UK, France and Germany. The election is a lesser of two evils.
But Sanders has already won. He've gotten some states, and he has raised the issue that maybe a new 'New Deal' would be needed.
Rubio already dropped out after losing Florida to Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Bernie Sander is honest and to me his heart is in the right place, but some of his ideas are poorly thought out and too simplistic; the best defense is that the'd appoint people who know what they're doing.
I think it's a marketing play. Populistic and radical, just like when he calls himself as a "democratic socialist". His policies are mainstream social democratic, not socialist.
I don't see the problem - Bernie is only proposing what already exists in every other developed country in the world. Do you guys want to improve your country or do you want it to be the laughing stock of everything as it currently is?
You "Don't see the problem"? Well, firstly, his policies are fiscally moronic, there's no feasable way to even come close to funding the programs he touts as the core of his campaign, he refuses to work with republicans, and even moderate democrats, which by the way means that none of his proposals will get through a republican controlled congress. The main voting base of his campaign consists of the uneducated and unemployed who are simply seeking handouts from the government and students who didn't work for a scholarship and don't want to pay for college the same as every single ****ing american before them. He donated to the communist party of america in the 1980's and wrote letters of support to multiple socialist leaders during the same time period. Some people claim that, as you said, most other developed countries have adopted policies which are indeed more "left" than those of the United States. However, these same countries have much smaller populations than that of the United States and also don't have the burden of maintaining global security. It also must be noted that the per-capita income in the United States is much higher than that of described countries BEFORE taxes which in these countries top 60%. The economy here is much healthier as well due to the atmosphere more conducive to small business development. In summation, Bernie Sanders is a clear socialist who seeks to destroy what made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, it's my opinion that it is imperative that we don't let the laziness and listlessness so prevelent in America today (See Bernie Sanders policies) end the magic of the Anerican Dream.
*I agree with you that Cruz is a regressive evangelical who, aside from Sanders is the worst remaining candidate. He denies evolution for ****s sake
You "Don't see the problem"? Well, firstly, his policies are fiscally moronic, there's no feasable way to even come close to funding the programs he touts as the core of his campaign, he refuses to work with republicans, and even moderate democrats, which by the way means that none of his proposals will get through a republican controlled congress. The main voting base of his campaign consists of the uneducated and unemployed who are simply seeking handouts from the government and students who didn't work for a scholarship and don't want to pay for college the same as every single ****ing american before them.
Not going to respond to all of it, but that's absurd. He has plenty employed, educated supporters. And going off the people filling my facebook feed with pro-Bernie Sanders stuff, few are unemployed or uneducated. Some are frustrated.
And Bernie Sanders has been thought of well in rural New England.
Bernie Sanders got plenty of donations from Silicon Valley employees, in Google half of that as Clinton, but Clinton donaters were probably richer
However, these same countries have much smaller populations than that of the United States and also don't have the burden of maintaining global security. It also must be noted that the per-capita income in the United States is much higher than that of described countries BEFORE taxes which in these countries top 60%. The economy here is much healthier as well due to the atmosphere more conducive to small business development.
That's all well and good, but the US not only has the highest levels of income inequality in the OECD but the third highest poverty rate - standing at around 25%, just behind Turkey and Romania and in excess of Mexico. That is an appalling figure for an apparently wealthy, first-world nation, is it not? Americans certainly earn more, but they also pay significantly more for education and healthcare. Taxes don't exceed 60% in any European country.
As for the rest of your post - I'm not sure what to say. 'The American Dream' doesn't exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
