Reply With Quote
I heard that he out raised her by 5 million dollars over the last two months, nearly all from small donations. I don't expect that to continue, but the democrat side maut be more interesting than originally thought.
I'm not an American, and I know that Hilary Clinton will almost certainly secure the Democratic nomination. But while it's still early, it would be fun to bandwagon with easily the most energizing and appealing figure in the entire presidential race.
I heard that he out raised her by 5 million dollars over the last two months, nearly all from small donations. I don't expect that to continue, but the democrat side maut be more interesting than originally thought.
I heard incorrectly. They said 15, not 50.
"I heard that he out raised her by 5 million dollars over the last two months"
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2015/04/15/clinton-vs-sanders-follow-money
she's WAY ahead in total take, and way ahead in polling vs Sanders.
Sanders' problem is that he's a populist, but America is owned and operated by VRWC/BigCorp/1% behind their bull myths and propaganda, not by the disenfranchised "vox populi".
He may pull Hillary to the left in the campaign, but if she wins, she'll abandon any campaign-ish "people" policies, and operate center-right, serving her paymasters.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-03-2015 at 08:39 AM.
Feel the Bern! Honestly, I'd rather he be the candidate than her.
Of course OP stands with Bernie. He's a faux-intellectual lib who would rather mooch off the government teat than work for a living. Pretty much sums up the average Sanders voter.
Sanders is only popular because he's promising "free" handouts and goodies for all. The ironic thing is, if he ever got elected with a supportive Congress, 90% of his base would be alienated when the reality sets in that they'd be paying out the ass in taxes to subsidize all those en lement giveaways.
With Warren on the ticket as VP or vice versa.
Yet you side with senile inbred dumbasses like the Paul family. I give upYou just refuse to accept that supporting vulnerable people is a good thing.
Yet you side with senile inbred dumbasses like the Paul family. I give up
People should be dependent on the government. Look what happens when you give power to the rich corporation owners instead of the government, they around and let their workers die because the sleazy assholes won't take any money out of their pockets to give people a living wage otherwise it'll cost them their profit. And thus we have your much loved conservatism.
Look what happens when an entire population is dependent on the government:Look what happens when you give power to the rich corporation owners instead of the government, they around and let their workers die because the sleazy assholes won't take any money out of their pockets to give people a living wage otherwise it'll cost them their profit. And thus we have your much loved conservatism.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...ate/ar-AActzhM
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...fugees/253831/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...capture-women/
Look what happens when an entire population is dependent on the government:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...ate/ar-AActzhM
Clearly wasn't implying a full on Communist state. At that point a democratic government doesn't even exist, but a massive social and equality divide not too dissimilar to your typical conservative ruled country, which is why communism doesn't work. People should be able to depend on the government as a safety net, like in FDR's day. In an individualist laissez-faire world, there'd be no government left for anyone to fall back on when goes wrong i.e. natural disaster or injury. Do you really want that?
In FDR's day, it took a world war AND a sweeping post-war budget cut to finally recover from the Great Depression (which, by the way, began under another big-spending, economy-interfering POTUS in Hoover). His "safety net" was a disaster, even his own Treasury secretary admitted this at the end of his quasi-monarchy.
Private mutual aid societies and charity > the government:In an individualist laissez-faire world, there'd be no government left for anyone to fall back on when goes wrong i.e. natural disaster or injury.
https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state
But you're right - what would we do without FEMA? We're all going to die if the government doesn't get to exploit natural disasters for kickbacks, bribes, and embezzlement!
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscent...disasters.html
You talk about Hoover as if he was some Liberal big government advocate. This guy refused to implement federal government job programs leaving it all to the individual states and local governments, and it didn't work. The guy was an individualist, he even wrote a book on it.
Private companies are established for and only for making someone a profit. Private healthcare companies for example are willing to cut back on medical equipment and spend as little as possible on patients if it means they make an overall profit to keep their business churning. You really think that if the welfare state is gone these 'charities' will sufficiently provide people who need aid with all the coverage they need?
You're starting to sound like a right-wing boutons_deux, tbh.
Hoover was a total interventionist:
https://mises.org/library/hoovers-attack-laissez-faire
Even FDR himself ripped Hoover to shreds for spending so much money in peacetime while campaigning against him.
Read the article about the charities and mutual aid societies I posted. They did just that. The whole reason welfare exists nowadays is because the government was jealous of how efficient the private sector was at giving the needy a hand up and decided to undercut them by removing the incentive to find work.You really think that if the welfare state is gone these 'charities' will sufficiently provide people who need aid with all the coverage they need?
You make it sound as though government has feelings either way, when -- in reality -- it only has lobbyists. If you read the article you linked, fraternal societies were snuffed out of existence to benefit business interests and corporations who wanted to expand their market share by obliterating their compe ion through regulation. If that strategy bothers you, you find yourself in Sanders' corner more than you seem to realize. For a recent example: Texas (along with many other states) shut down the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics because religious lobbies (and lobbies representing the new for-profit surgery centers popping up everywhere, I suspect) fought to revise standards that had worked for low-income families for decades.
Obviously, the answer is that Rand Paul should tap Bernie Sanders to be his veep.
I'm pretty sure I'll be voting Paul for the primary.
nah, rather than be a "bucket of warm spit", Liz heading SEC or Treasury much better.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-04-2015 at 10:51 AM.
This Is Bernie Sanders' Plan to Beat Hillary Clinton
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...illary-clinton
One Of The Nation’s Most Influential Labor Leaders Has Endorsed Bernie Sanders
In another show of union support for Bernie Sanders, one of the nation’s most influential labor leaders on Friday endorsed the Democratic Party presidential candidate.
"Larry Cohen, the past president of the Communications Workers of America, gave his backing to Sanders at a news conference held here in a local union hall.“This is not a close call,” Cohen said at the news conference. “This is a guy who for his entire life has been there for working people.”
“I am proud to have the support of Larry Cohen and so many workers in the American trade union movement,” Sanders said. “They know we need an economy that works for the middle class and not just the wealthy.”
Sanders and Cohen were joined by members from other labor groups including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the Iron Workers Union, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, National Nurses United, the International Association of Firefighters, the American Postal Workers Union and 75 others.
Cohen’s endorsement was significant because it came on the heels of a Politico report that AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka was working behind the scenes to squash the growing momentum among union members for Bernie Sanders.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/...iticus+USA+%29
The idea that after 8 years of failed liberal programs America will vote for someone more liberal, and a self proclaimed socialist, is laughable! The pendelum is swinging back to my side. Put anyone you want on the D ticket. It doesn't matter! I just hope Conservatives elect a real future president and not Bush, Trump, or Christie.
This is 08 all over again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
