Red Mosquito

Anders wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

He will be 79 before the election, and calls himself a democratic socialist.

So?

That is too old to be a good president. Certanly in the long term.

I would never vote for a socialist. More taxes and government control, less freedom. The US could use further health care reforms, but I do not believe a socialist rule is a good choice.

The first point is just dumb and wrong.

He’s not a socialist - he’s a democratic socialist. And I disagree with you fundamentally about what this entails. Those lines about “more government, less freedom!” are total libertarian rhetoric.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

how "good" can a candidate be when the very ideas and beliefs for which he stands and for which people vote will be watered down or thrown completely out the window after he takes office, thus relegating him to a 78-year-old male version of other centrist, non-"good" candidates? put another way, what separates him from others now simply won't carry day during his presidency.

At the very least he is offering a different approach to the problem you're talking about. Every one of these people would face the GOP that exists today. So far I've not heard many answers from anyone, except Sanders, on how to counter this, other than to claim "moderation" as if it gives them a better chance. Bernie is basically saying he won't stop barnstorming the country with his supporters to rally people. You can believe that would make a difference or not, but this is one thing that separates him. And so far the only alternative to the same approach as the past.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

He will be 79 before the election, and calls himself a democratic socialist.

So?

That is too old to be a good president. Certanly in the long term.

I would never vote for a socialist. More taxes and government control, less freedom. The US could use further health care reforms, but I do not believe a socialist rule is a good choice.

The first point is just dumb and wrong.

He’s not a socialist - he’s a democratic socialist. And I disagree with you fundamentally about what this entails. Those lines about “more government, less freedom!” are total libertarian rhetoric.

I’ve grown up in a country with all kinds of socialists, I know what it entails.

However, I will almost certainly hope the Democratic candidate defeats Trump.

I love the freedom to be owned by CEOs and live in terror of getting sick! FREEDOM BABY AMERICA YEAH!!!!!

Anders wrote: I’ve grown up in a country with all kinds of socialists, I know what it entails.

However, I will almost certainly hope the Democratic candidate defeats Trump.

Seem like Norway has put socialism to better use than most other places, no?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I love the freedom to be owned by CEOs and live in terror of getting sick! FREEDOM BABY AMERICA YEAH!!!!!

I fully agree with this. The US can do a lot to improve for the better with reforming the rights for each individual person with regards to health care, sick leave, paid vacation, and welfare. Only the Democratic party seems interested in doing so.

Anders wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I love the freedom to be owned by CEOs and live in terror of getting sick! FREEDOM BABY AMERICA YEAH!!!!!

I fully agree with this. The US can do a lot to improve for the better with reforming the rights for each individual person with regards to health care, sick leave, paid vacation, and welfare. Only the Democratic party seems interested in doing so.

I don’t think the Democratic Party is interested in this. Sanders is, though.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

how "good" can a candidate be when the very ideas and beliefs for which he stands and for which people vote will be watered down or thrown completely out the window after he takes office, thus relegating him to a 78-year-old male version of other centrist, non-"good" candidates? put another way, what separates him from others now simply won't carry day during his presidency.

So....we should vote for a candidate who won’t even try? I don’t understand what you’re advocating here.

i'm not advocating, i'm pointing out that the definition of "good" may be based on something that in the end may be a distinction without a difference.

verb_to_trust wrote:Klob is going to be the new sensible moderate the media will shamelessly push for. This is like when the Bulls cycled through Jerian Grant, Michael Carter Williams and Cam Payne at PG a few years ago after cutting Spencer Dinwiddie in preseason. Spoiler: none of those three are in the NBA anymore. Spencer is a border line all star however.

you're using sports analogies to explain political analogies. I barely know who all is running for president, let alone the Bulls starting line up.

Rob wrote:

Anders wrote: I’ve grown up in a country with all kinds of socialists, I know what it entails.

However, I will almost certainly hope the Democratic candidate defeats Trump.

Seem like Norway has put socialism to better use than most other places, no?

Norway has usually been run by either centre right governments, or by the social democratic party in minority governments, having to cooperate with other non-socialist parties.

We were also fortunate to have found oil in the 70s. While there are plenty of other business, the oil has been a massive boost since the 80s. The social democratic party was central in making the oil state owned though, so have to give them credit for that.

I won’t get into further boring details, but I am happy that we have not been run completely by socialists.

Rob wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

how "good" can a candidate be when the very ideas and beliefs for which he stands and for which people vote will be watered down or thrown completely out the window after he takes office, thus relegating him to a 78-year-old male version of other centrist, non-"good" candidates? put another way, what separates him from others now simply won't carry day during his presidency.

At the very least he is offering a different approach to the problem you're talking about. Every one of these people would face the GOP that exists today. So far I've not heard many answers from anyone, except Sanders, on how to counter this, other than to claim "moderation" as if it gives them a better chance. Bernie is basically saying he won't stop barnstorming the country with his supporters to rally people. You can believe that would make a difference or not, but this is one thing that separates him. And so far the only alternative to the same approach as the past.

two things in response: (1) is sanders really offering something to counteract the status quo when that "something" becomes what other democratic candidates are currently advocating? (2) democrats don't need the other extreme end of the political spectrum to beat trump, and i'm really struggling to figure out why some people (note: not those that are truly on board with sanders and his politics) think that they do. it may end up doing more harm than good and chase off a lot of potential voters, like those that think: "i really hate trump, and think that he's a national disgrace, but compared to the damage to my bottom line that sanders could do, i'll take my chances with trump." don't underestimate the number of voters out there like this that exist.

Bloomberg is even worse than Klobuchar

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Bloomberg is even worse than Klobuchar

you're too young to vote anyway..

doug rr wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Bloomberg is even worse than Klobuchar

you're too young to vote anyway..

ok Strat

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Rob wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Anders wrote:The Democratic party must have someone better than Sanders? But whoever else is discussed here, most seem so negative.

He’s the only good candidate though

how "good" can a candidate be when the very ideas and beliefs for which he stands and for which people vote will be watered down or thrown completely out the window after he takes office, thus relegating him to a 78-year-old male version of other centrist, non-"good" candidates? put another way, what separates him from others now simply won't carry day during his presidency.

At the very least he is offering a different approach to the problem you're talking about. Every one of these people would face the GOP that exists today. So far I've not heard many answers from anyone, except Sanders, on how to counter this, other than to claim "moderation" as if it gives them a better chance. Bernie is basically saying he won't stop barnstorming the country with his supporters to rally people. You can believe that would make a difference or not, but this is one thing that separates him. And so far the only alternative to the same approach as the past.

two things in response: (1) is sanders really offering something to counteract the status quo when that "something" becomes what other democratic candidates are currently advocating? (2) democrats don't need the other extreme end of the political spectrum to beat trump, and i'm really struggling to figure out why some people (note: not those that are truly on board with sanders and his politics) think that they do. it may end up doing more harm than good and chase off a lot of potential voters, like those that think: "i really hate trump, and think that he's a national disgrace, but compared to the damage to my bottom line that sanders could do, i'll take my chances with trump." don't underestimate the number of voters out there like this that exist.

I think what you're asking in the first point is - if all a Sanders admin can do is get what the others are asking for, is he any different? Or better? Some may see that as a win, some might not like it. I can see Sanders compromising once in office, and we get a medicare option and some tuition/loan assistance. The other guys begin the negotiation from the middle, so it's hard to see what they might get, if anything.That would be a win for Sanders.

To your second point, I don't necessarily believe you need the "Bernie army" to beat Trump. What I meant was that his plan to deal with the Senate includes lots of pressure on senators (the bully pulpit argument). Again, might make a difference, might not. But Mitch & Co aren't planning to work with any of them, no matter how moderate.

Are people going to continue to be fooled by talk of a strong economy when their lives aren't improving at all?

JuanHamm wrote:Are people going to continue to be fooled by talk of a strong economy when their lives aren't improving at all?

are people going to educate themselves to figure it out?