WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Wrong question. The real question would be why in the world would the democrats allow somebody to run as a socialist and refusing to join the Democratic party? This logic would allow, for instance, Hitler to also run as a Democrat. On top of that, should he win, he will then paint the entire Democratic party as Socialists.
Now add in the simple fact that he also wants to force large companies and all companies with stock on the markets to give 20% of their worth to their workers.
The above is also interesting. I remember when the owner of UPS gave the company to his employees. It wasn't too long before the employees who were not owners, and even some that were, went on strike against the greedy worker owners.
Does ANYBODY actually believe this could get through the congress? Any congress?
I, incidentally, am in favor of his health initiative but some of this stuff, not unlike Warren's stuff is simply not possible and gets a bit nuts. Much of it is what has brought down other socialist nations.
I will vote for him if he gets the nod but I will not be happy. I also doubt that he can win with his plans. You need the middle to win and the middle won't support a cast iron socialist. That's a simple and known fact. If he ran my only hope would be that he could swamp the congress with his people. I don't think that he would but maybe (better than nothing?)
I consider voting for Bernie to be wasting a vote. Unless, of course, you want Trump for another 4 years.
Hmmm... My first Hitler/Sanders comparison spotted in the wild. I remember all the Obama as Hitler memes from a few years ago.
Anyway, here's another commerial developed, without permission I believe, for the sanders campaign. The horizontal nature of his campaign structure has made for some interesting displays of talent able to be showcased in nontraditional ways. If you haven't seen it already it's worth a watch. Reminds me of the 'Means of Production' crew from 2018.
I think the they did a good job with it, by the way.
I have a friend who told me Sanders is an interloper, an independent running for the Democratic nomination. He pointed out Sanders only became a Democrat just before the New Hampshire primary and immediately went back to being an independent right after the general election of 2016. He's still registered as an independent.
I wondered how many other Democrats think along his line. So I went to YouGov to see how those who affiliated or call themselves Democrats viewed the Candidates. Question 38. Democrats line up as this, Biden 29%, Warren 22% Sanders 15%. For all other Democratic candidates look at Question 38. Then independents who are planning on voting in the Democratic Primaries in open state primaries. Independents view the candidates differently. Sanders 28%, Biden 12%, Warren 12%.
So maybe he has a point. More independents are backing Sanders than the party faithful. He is a Biden supporter which may have biased his view on Sanders as an interloper. But perhaps not. The numbers show Sanders fairly weak among rank and file Democrats, strong among independents who will be voting in the democratic primaries.
I think we need to remember than in 2016 Sanders won 59% of the independent vote who voted in the Democratic Primaries vs Hillary winning 65% of those rank and file Democrats, who make up the Democratic base. Is he right? I'm still not sure, but the numbers tend to point that he is.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
Turning over part ownership of corporations to the workers is really not all that unusual. I've had a lot of employee stock ownership plans during my career. It's an idea that a lot of company boards have embraced, as well as employee board seats.
Now add in the simple fact that he also wants to force large companies and all companies with stock on the markets to give 20% of their worth to their workers.
Link Please?
Bernie has proposed a transaction tax on stock market trading. Liz proposed a 2% wealth tax. Those are simple facts.
Quote
I consider voting for Bernie to be wasting a vote. Unless, of course, you want Trump for another 4 years.
Then by all means DON"T vote for him! Don't waste your vote! Personally I think it will be hilarious if the right wing of the Democratic Party stays home and costs Bernie the election! Poetic justice, Karma at its finest. I picture Michabou, Coyote, and Raven, rolling on their backs and laughing hysterically.
Loki's looking at his phone and laughing with them.
I'm okay with four more years of Trump. AOC might be old enough to run by then. It'll be easy to elect a progressive Democrat after eight years of Trump. We might do it right now after just four years.
You really oughta get over this unreasonable fear of social democracy. Have you even looked at the proposed Scandinavian models Sanders would like us to emulate? Just Google ten happiest nations and look at their governments.
That's what I'm talkin' about! Places where government works for everybody.
You are right and that is a LOT different from forcing them to turn over 20% of their worth to "the workers" (which, as far as I can tell, and I can be wrong about this, is not all that well defined).
As an aside there were two businesses, where I live, that did that. One turned over a part and the other one turned over the whole thing. The whole thing completely failed and the owners had to take it back. The other continues to struggle (not unknown - Our current unemployed is 6% to 7% and that is regular)
However, under Bernie's plan gov will force it and do it. AS far as I am concerned that is a really slippery slope. I can't even think of a source for government funds that is not increased if gov can increase it. It is, basically, the plan for Socialist domination of ALL means of production. This is, basically, the goal of classic socialism. Always has been always will be. The secret, of course, is that DOES NOT WORK!
That is also the problem with most governments. They always tend to get too big for their britches and, when that happens, people get upset and things, eventually, change. The trick of good government is to maintain a middle stance, in most things, which is the most likely to be acceptable to the largest part of those being governed.
My apology. I didn't answer your questions (not paying attention)
That is also the problem with most governments. They always tend to get too big for their britches and, when that happens, people get upset and things, eventually, change. The trick of good government is to maintain a middle stance, in most things, which is the most likely to be acceptable to the largest part of those being governed.
I still think getting rid of Trump is THE most important thing, regardless of who gets the nod from the Dems. I think I have made it pretty clear that I am not a fan of Bernie OR Biden (they are just too freaking old!) but would vote for either if that was the choice. I am not convinced that we could stand another 4 more years of Trump. I also believe that, should he lose this year, he will not go silently or easily and could actually start a civil war. I think he is that dangerous (I am not alone).
I am for a small tax on all stock trades. Something like .020 (or even .010 of a cent) of a penny would do it. This would, basically, be a charge against those huge banks of computers that make millions of trades a day to skim very small amounts that really add up when you do it millions of times a day. This would also help to balance the stock market which I dabble in a bit (have averaged about 7% over the last 10 years and there are better ways to go and get a steady 10% but the buy is pretty bit). If you want close to 10% here is where you can get that (if you got the bucks and don't want to mess around) https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/the-lessons-of-couch-potato-investing https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/authors/scott-burns
A very small tax on trades would raise a LOT of money and those paying it would be the upper 10%. The rest of us wouldn't even notice the charge. Not only that but it would be constitutional (some of the wealth taxes being considered are not)
That is also the problem with most governments. They always tend to get too big for their britches and, when that happens, people get upset and things, eventually, change. The trick of good government is to maintain a middle stance, in most things, which is the most likely to be acceptable to the largest part of those being governed.
For the past fifteen years we have been watching as Republicans, then the Tea Party, and now Trump, have advocated shrinking the government until it could be "drowned in the bathtub".
I daresay it's been adequately "waterboarded" at this point. Pendulums always swing back to zero first before they continue swinging in the other direction. We are about as far to the right as we can possibly get before the pendulum breaks its hinges and careens off into radical fascism altogether and yet you're convinced that we're on the brink of near-communism.
Wow.
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD deepfreezefilms.com
That is also the problem with most governments. They always tend to get too big for their britches and, when that happens, people get upset and things, eventually, change. The trick of good government is to maintain a middle stance, in most things, which is the most likely to be acceptable to the largest part of those being governed.
For the past fifteen years we have been watching as Republicans, then the Tea Party, and now Trump, have advocated shrinking the government until it could be "drowned in the bathtub".
I daresay it's been adequately "waterboarded" at this point. Pendulums always swing back to zero first before they continue swinging in the other direction. We are about as far to the right as we can possibly get before the pendulum breaks its hinges and careens off into radical fascism altogether and yet you're convinced that we're on the brink of near-communism.
Wow.
I don't know if "too big for it's britches," is the right phrase. What happens is each new president and the members of their party always over reach or treat their election as a mandate. That causes huge loses in their first midterm. Perhaps because the voters just wanted to get rid of the old, were more angry at the old regime than angry at those out of power?
Look at the house losses during each president's first midterm 2018 Trump lost 40 seats 2010 Obama lost 63 seats 2002 Bush gained 8 seats, because of 9-11 united the people behind him and his party. But he lost 33 seats in his next midterm, 2006 1994 Bill Clinton lost 54 seats 1990 Bush Sr. lost 8 seats, but he had only 175 to begin with. 1982 Reagan lost 28 seats leaving him at 166 etc.
as for shrinking government, neither party does it. The Republicans enlarge government just as much as the democrats, but the Republicans lie about it. The Democrats proudly proclaim their fancy for bigger and bigger government.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans enlarge government just as much as the democrats, but the Republicans lie about it. The Democrats proudly proclaim their fancy for bigger and bigger government.
A country with over 300 Million citizens is somewhat too large for small government to be a thing. But rather than bigger and bigger government Democrats need to create bigger and better government.
Republicans just create expensive problems without ever solving anything.
