Sanders, Bloomberg trade insults as Democratic White House race heats up

[metisdead]

A post with an off topic video has been removed. 

[Jack100]

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 10:38 PM, OZinPattaya said:

People are starting to realize that Trump is not the only guy with skeletons in his closet. Well, maybe better to go back to the Clinton Era, of interns and cigars and actual grand-jury lies and impeachment. The democratic party is sure to abandon this guy on--let's face it--purely political and politically-correct grounds. So congratulations, all you democrats, for reelecting the next president of these United States, Mr. Donald Trump!

 

My moderate, centrist and staunchly democratic father, who hates Trump with absolute fervor--complete and incurable Trump derangement syndrome--STILL never will vote for Sanders. Ever! That should tell you something about 2020. I mean, come 2020, he just won't show up to the polls. If a radical from the dem party is the candidate. 

OZ you forgot to mention the Kennedys !

[sucit]

19 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You comparing me paying for college with you inhaling cigarette smoke....totally bizarre.  But whatever.  So you think providing free stuff is the solution?  Aside from Congress never approving, it just isn't affordable.  As for my kids, I'll be paying for their college. 

 

 

 

I am obviously pointing out to you that just because you had to do something, does not mean humans for the rest of time should be subject to the same poor policies. 

 

Look at countries that have free college. Is it a popular program? They somehow manage to afford it. What if these countries said "well, I had to pay for college, every student for the rest of time should have to pay for college then". That is a nonsensical argument. You can't see that, so it is being pointed out to you.

 

And notice, you do not have any substantive retorts to it. When that happens to you, you should stop and perhaps think, "am I wrong about this?". Because when you can't coherently argue a point, it means there is nothing there to back it up.

 

So go ahead then, explain why since you had to pay for college, every person for the rest of time should have to. Even though we have free high school, and everyone seems to love it, explain why we can't have that for college, and why it "cheapens it" in places like Germany. Using your "logic" citizens should be forced to pay for high school and middle school too, right? 

Edited February 21, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

19 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You comparing me paying for college with you inhaling cigarette smoke....totally bizarre.  But whatever.  So you think providing free stuff is the solution?  Aside from Congress never approving, it just isn't affordable.  As for my kids, I'll be paying for their college. 

Nothing is free, much of the tax money would come from Wall Street under Sander's plan. I will let you read up on it. 

 

Here is a new study on the proposed "free" healthcare system Sanders proposes. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673619330193#!

 

Saves 70,000 lives per year, and is cheaper. But you wrap it all up with "free stuff is the solution?". 

 

I would say putting a stop to corporate greed is the solution. Corporations like pharma extorting the public with their pricing practices. 

 

These policies are not radicle. In fact you find many of these policies in most developed countries worldwide. 

 

But yes, once again, to just wrap it all up and ask "free stuff is the solution?"... sure, if it means doing things like ridding the people of greedy health insurance middle men that serve no purpose whatsoever. 

 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

Nothing is free, much of the tax money would come from Wall Street under Sander's plan. I will let you read up on it. 

 

Here is a new study on the proposed "free" healthcare system Sanders proposes. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673619330193#!

 

Saves 70,000 lives per year, and is cheaper. But you wrap it all up with "free stuff is the solution?". 

 

I would say putting a stop to corporate greed is the solution. Corporations like pharma extorting the public with their pricing practices. 

 

These policies are not radicle. In fact you find many of these policies in most developed countries worldwide. 

 

But yes, once again, to just wrap it all up and ask "free stuff is the solution?"... sure, if it means doing things like ridding the people of greedy health insurance middle men that serve no purpose whatsoever. 

 

 

Much of it is from Wall Street? People say this as if Wall Street gives away free money. What you are saying is much of it would come straight out of my retirement funds which are in a 401K, an IRA and also stocks I pick. 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

Nothing is free, much of the tax money would come from Wall Street under Sander's plan. I will let you read up on it. 

 

Here is a new study on the proposed "free" healthcare system Sanders proposes. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673619330193#!

 

Saves 70,000 lives per year, and is cheaper. But you wrap it all up with "free stuff is the solution?". 

 

I would say putting a stop to corporate greed is the solution. Corporations like pharma extorting the public with their pricing practices. 

 

These policies are not radicle. In fact you find many of these policies in most developed countries worldwide. 

 

But yes, once again, to just wrap it all up and ask "free stuff is the solution?"... sure, if it means doing things like ridding the people of greedy health insurance middle men that serve no purpose whatsoever. 

 

You're offering simple solutions to complicated problems.  Rather than debating with you endlessly (including the college thing), let's just say that if Bernie wins the nomination, I will support him.  But he's going to have a difficult time convincing all of America that socialism is a winning idea. 

[Cryingdick]

6 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

You're offering simple solutions to complicated problems.  Rather than debating with you endlessly (including the college thing), let's just say that if Bernie wins the nomination, I will support him.  But he's going to have a difficult time convincing all of America that socialism is a winning idea. 

 

Even should Bernie win. He won't be able to get any of this through the senate and given his age would be a one termer anyway. All of his talk is nothing more than pie in the sky.

[Berkshire]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

16 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

You're offering simple solutions to complicated problems.  Rather than debating with you endlessly (including the college thing), let's just say that if Bernie wins the nomination, I will support him.  But he's going to have a difficult time convincing all of America that socialism is a winning idea. 

 

Even should Bernie win. He won't be able to get any of this through the senate and given his age would be a one termer anyway. All of his talk is nothing more than pie in the sky.

It pains me to agree with you, but even Harry Reid, a Democrat and former majority leader, says Medicare for All ain't happening.

 

["It’s impractical ... There’s not a chance in hell it would pass," he told ABC News Political Director Rick Klein, instead advocating for strengthening the Affordable Care Act -- or Obamacare -- and looking to pass a public option.]

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nevada-sen-harry-reid-chance-hell-medicare-pass/story?id=69048037

[sucit]

19 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

You're offering simple solutions to complicated problems.  Rather than debating with you endlessly (including the college thing), let's just say that if Bernie wins the nomination, I will support him.  But he's going to have a difficult time convincing all of America that socialism is a winning idea. 

It does not seem very complicated. Other countries do it.

 

I have provided a link for you that shows the healthcare program actually saves money and lives.

 

If you mean "complicated" as in it is difficult to stop corporations like pharma from extorting the public then I would fully agree. I do not think the policies are complicated at all, they would solve problems, educate the public and save lives, as evidence from other countries that have implemented them. 

[sucit]

29 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Much of it is from Wall Street? People say this as if Wall Street gives away free money. What you are saying is much of it would come straight out of my retirement funds which are in a 401K, an IRA and also stocks I pick. 

 

 

It is a speculation tax. Go read about it if you'd like. As a tax payer, you inject money into wall street all the time to artificially prop them up. You may or may not complain about this?

 

Whatever the case, nobody is proposing any thing is "from thin air free". Yes, someone will have to pay so that the single mother who had health problems and wants her kid to go to college can in fact send him. But I do understand if your answer to that is "but what about ME!" I completely, fully, 100% understand actually. 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

It is a speculation tax. Go read about it if you'd like. As a tax payer, you inject money into wall street all the time to artificially prop them up. You may or may not complain about this?

 

Whatever the case, nobody is proposing any thing is "from thin air free". Yes, someone will have to pay so that the single mother who had health problems and wants her kid to go to college can in fact send him. But I do understand if your answer to that is "but what about ME!" I completely, fully, 100% understand actually. 

 

No it isn't what about me? I am doing fine. America is one of the easiest places on the planet to make something of yourself. This is why so many people want to come here. That kid can get financial aid the same as everybody else did. Being poor is no excuse. 

 

Actually I will drop out of the discussion because it isn't going to happen anyway. There is no point in debating that which is nothing more than a fairytale.

 

 

[sucit]

39 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Even should Bernie win. He won't be able to get any of this through the senate and given his age would be a one termer anyway. All of his talk is nothing more than pie in the sky.

Finally we agree! Sanders being elected is just the START. The start of people having a chance to actually improve their lives. 

 

But yes, it is not just going to come by him just winning the election. I think we have been trained to believe this, but that is not even how things were designed to work. There is a lot to be done even after the candidate who has policies you believe in is elected. I am not sure what exactly is your problem with that? It is simply just part of the democratic process. 

 

In short, if you have a president who is actually for the people, you have a fighting chance. If you have someone like Hillary or Trump in there, you have virtually no chance. 

[sucit]

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

No it isn't what about me? I am doing fine. America is one of the easiest places on the planet to make something of yourself. This is why so many people want to come here. That kid can get financial aid the same as everybody else did. Being poor is no excuse. 

 

Actually I will drop out of the discussion because it isn't going to happen anyway. There is no point in debating that which is nothing more than a fairytale.

 

 

Yes! Ha. "Everyone can make it."

 

No. That is not the way it works. That would be how it worked if we had a society where every single individual had the same exact number of chances and opportunities for success. Same exact health problems, same parents. Same everything. 

 

If it is not about you, then what exactly is your objection to the speculation tax proposed to fund college for US citizens? 

 

You are doing fine because you got lucky. There are people out there who have worked harder than you and are bankrupt, unhealthy, or even dead (60,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance). 

 

So, you are entitled to your opinion no doubt, but just because you got lucky, does not require you to think everyone should be just as fortunate. 

 

I would drop out of discussions too if I had no substantive points to offer. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by sucit

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, sucit said:

Yes! Ha. "Everyone can make it."

 

No. That is not the way it works. That would be how it worked if we had a society where every single individual had the same exact number of chances and opportunities for success. Same exact health problems, same parents. Same everything. 

 

If it is not about you, then what exactly is your objection to the speculation tax proposed to fund college for US citizens? 

 

You are doing fine because you got lucky. There are people out there who have worked harder than you and are bankrupt, unhealthy, or even dead (60,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance). 

 

So, you are entitled to your opinion no doubt, but just because you got lucky, does not require you to think everyone should be just as fortunate. 

 

I would drop out of discussions too if I had no substantive points to offer. 

 

I got lucky? I grow up very poor and was homeless when I was 13 and am from a broken home. It get's worse I am from Minnesota so being on the streets in the winter is tough. Ever had to sleep in a hall way of an apartment because it's warm and there is no security? That would be harder to find these days. Ever slept in a car and put your hands in your armpits or crotch to keep your extremities warm?

 

Most Americans haven't the foggiest clue about what suffering is. 

 

I got some paper routes and used the proceeds to buy food stamps for half their face value and then went store to store to get the 99 cents change one dollar at a time Back then when you had paper stamps if you bought something the change in coins was given in cash. Didn't take me long to figure out you could buy a one a cent gum and get 99 cents cash for every dollar stamp. I would take the gum to school and sell it for ten cents. Lucky right? 

 

I had more business savvy and better money management skills while I went through puberty than most adult Americans have today. I was always good at certain things and if you ever think I just got lucky I would challenge you to a paper trading account and we see who does better after a year. All things being equal, there is skill to it. 

 

 

 

You offend me when you say I am lucky but you are right in the sense I am lucky I was born in the USA where things are so easy to do. I can't say I would have the same life had I been born in Thailand or other places. 

 

I have lived in more than 20 countries (lived not visited) and have spent my entire adult life outside of the USA. 

 

I am now back in the USa and the ease of doing almost anything you can imagine is easier than anywhere else I have ever lived. If you have a little imagination, a tiny amount of gumption you will normally get "lucky". 

 

 

[TheDark]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

I got some paper routes and used the proceeds to buy food stamps for half their face value and then went store to store to get the 99 cents change one dollar at a time Back then when you had paper stamps if you bought something the change in coins was given in cash. Didn't take me long to figure out you could buy a one a cent gum and get 99 cents cash for every dollar stamp. I would take the gum to school and sell it for ten cents. Lucky right? 

Not lucky. Clever and abusive. 

 

There is a difference between society investing it's citizens by offering them good healthcare and education. That way the future generations will be able to generate enough money to take care of the elderly aka pay pensions.

 

What you did, you abused a loophole of other people's generosity, which is probably cause, why so many people are against supporting the less fortunate members of the society.

 

I think offering help for the ones, who could really make use of it, is a better option.

 

Aka. Teach the people how to fish their own food. 

[Berkshire]

56 minutes ago, sucit said:

In short, if you have a president who is actually for the people, you have a fighting chance.

You realize that the other side (Trump and the GOP) will be arguing the same thing.  Except they won't be saddled with the label "socialist."  Regardless of what you and other Bernie Bros think, there are many, many Americans who abhor the term. 

[Jingthing]

Mike Bloomberg's debate performance in Las Vegas was the worst presidential debate performance I have ever seen. While that couldn't have been intentional, IF he performs in a mediocre way at his next debate, pundits can then call that a win. I'm not going to discount the power of his disposable billions going forward, but he really is going to need to do better. At this point, I wish the democrats would have a huddle and all drop out except for one to challenge Sanders. Of course they won't do that so it looks like we're headed to a contested convention.

 

As far as Bloomberg's socialist attack on Bernie, it really did come off as a republican flavored attack, not a democratic one. Yes the 45 campaign will try to label all democrats especially Bernie as radical far leftists, when of course they're not, Bloomberg seemed to be buying into the B.S. that Bernie is favoring an authoritarian left wing regime. I would have respected him more if he had said that if Bernie is nominated, the 45 side will be running Bernie equals Venezuela ads 24/7 and while not true that will make Bernie unelectable. That's a fair argument whether you agree with it or not. Parroting the 45 style attacks is not, certainly not from someone running for the democratic nomination.

 

Of course democrats will need to unite behind whoever is nominated, including Bernie, including Bloomberg.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Jingthing

[Somewhere In Time]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Bloomberg seemed to be buying into the B.S. that Bernie is favoring an authoritarian left wing regime.

No B.S. here.  It's real.

 

SIT

[lannarebirth]

On 2/18/2020 at 2:19 PM, sirineou said:

Bloomberg should be more concerned about the country and less concerned with the Party. 

 That's how the corruption of good people on both sides of the isle starts. The idea that you can't get to the dance without the "party" and all the compromises to stay on the good side of the "party" and before you know it, you don't even recognize yourself, you look in the mirror and all you see is "party". 

You are in the "Bubble" 

The "Party" is not changing Sanders, he still says the same thing he said 2016. Sanders is changing the party, 

and with luck he will live long enough to change the country. To all of you who don't think the country needs changing Vote Bloomberg.  

Bloomberg's not going to be president. He just wants enough leverage to choose the next president and ensure it is not Bernie. The last question of the debate was telling. Every candidate save Bernie was not willing to concede victory to the candidate with the majority of delegates at the convention if the 50% threshold was not met. These are the same candidates whose very platforms and stump speeches over and over again rail against going against the popular vote. Bloomberg is subverting democracy and the DNC and less popular candidates are all ok with that. If the convention goes to a second ballot and the superdelegates choose a nominee other than the popular vote winner the Democrat party will effectively be finished.

[sucit]

On 2/21/2020 at 10:42 AM, Cryingdick said:

 

I got lucky? I grow up very poor and was homeless when I was 13 and am from a broken home. It get's worse I am from Minnesota so being on the streets in the winter is tough. Ever had to sleep in a hall way of an apartment because it's warm and there is no security? That would be harder to find these days. Ever slept in a car and put your hands in your armpits or crotch to keep your extremities warm?

 

Most Americans haven't the foggiest clue about what suffering is. 

 

I got some paper routes and used the proceeds to buy food stamps for half their face value and then went store to store to get the 99 cents change one dollar at a time Back then when you had paper stamps if you bought something the change in coins was given in cash. Didn't take me long to figure out you could buy a one a cent gum and get 99 cents cash for every dollar stamp. I would take the gum to school and sell it for ten cents. Lucky right? 

 

I had more business savvy and better money management skills while I went through puberty than most adult Americans have today. I was always good at certain things and if you ever think I just got lucky I would challenge you to a paper trading account and we see who does better after a year. All things being equal, there is skill to it. 

 

 

 

You offend me when you say I am lucky but you are right in the sense I am lucky I was born in the USA where things are so easy to do. I can't say I would have the same life had I been born in Thailand or other places. 

 

I have lived in more than 20 countries (lived not visited) and have spent my entire adult life outside of the USA. 

 

I am now back in the USa and the ease of doing almost anything you can imagine is easier than anywhere else I have ever lived. If you have a little imagination, a tiny amount of gumption you will normally get "lucky". 

 

 

Yes, of course you did. You got extremely lucky. Try being "successful" and a single mother of two who has health problems and has to take six months off of work. Or someone who had your same exact trajectory and had to file for bankrupcy because of medical bills, The examples could go on and on. You just do not seem to get it.

 

Of course everyone will think to themselves, "I die not get lucky, for me it was hard work" lol You just refuse to see it... there are people who have worked 10 times harder than you and had 1/10 of the chances you had and the system did nothing but work against...

 

You ever lived life as a black gay man, or a disfigured person? You just smugly have no <deleted> clue. You got lucky. Deal with it! 

 

Regardless if all that above, you point would STILL make absolutely no sense! So, you did good for yourself and are now well off. Great! But now you want to hoard all of your success: "what is going to happen to me and my poor 401k if people actually get the healthcare they need". 

 

Nothing will happen to you! As you are arguing, you will be fine because you are independent and able to overcome "adversity". You say you are not all about yourself and yet every statement you make reeks of selfishness. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

On 2/21/2020 at 11:13 AM, Berkshire said:

You realize that the other side (Trump and the GOP) will be arguing the same thing.  Except they won't be saddled with the label "socialist."  Regardless of what you and other Bernie Bros think, there are many, many Americans who abhor the term. 

What I can do if people are more interested in labels than actual policy? It does not seem to be the case though, look at the polls. So I am not sure what you are even talking about. Why do you make statements and yet the polling indicates the opposite? 

[sucit]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Mike Bloomberg's debate performance in Las Vegas was the worst presidential debate performance I have ever seen. While that couldn't have been intentional, IF he performs in a mediocre way at his next debate, pundits can then call that a win. I'm not going to discount the power of his disposable billions going forward, but he really is going to need to do better. At this point, I wish the democrats would have a huddle and all drop out except for one to challenge Sanders. Of course they won't do that so it looks like we're headed to a contested convention.

 

As far as Bloomberg's socialist attack on Bernie, it really did come off as a republican flavored attack, not a democratic one. Yes the 45 campaign will try to label all democrats especially Bernie as radical far leftists, when of course they're not, Bloomberg seemed to be buying into the B.S. that Bernie is favoring an authoritarian left wing regime. I would have respected him more if he had said that if Bernie is nominated, the 45 side will be running Bernie equals Venezuela ads 24/7 and while not true that will make Bernie unelectable. That's a fair argument whether you agree with it or not. Parroting the 45 style attacks is not, certainly not from someone running for the democratic nomination.

 

Of course democrats will need to unite behind whoever is nominated, including Bernie, including Bloomberg.

The only thing you need to know, for a virtual fact at this point, is that if there is a contested convention and Bernie turns out to get it stolen from him, not only is Trump going to stay put, but the effects for the dem party could last decades. 

 

If I was you I would seriously prey that Bernie, or whoever wins the popular vote, does actually turn out to be the nominee... you know, this little thing we call democracy. It is sorta important but when it comes to stealing elections and all, I would have to agree, it may not be so important after all. 

[Jingthing]

Bernie was FOR the first ballot leader but under the needed number NOT automatically winning (in 2016) before he was against it. Because he was not the leader in 2016 but it's assumed that this time he'll be going into the convention leading but under the needed number. What a hypocrite! He's no better than any other politician. OK, that's par for the course, but no more delusions about "Saint" Bernie please. For sake of sweet justice I'd like to see another candidate leading going into the convention so we can watch Bernie the hypocrite change his position again. 

 

[sucit]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Bernie was FOR the first ballot leader but under the needed number NOT automatically winning (in 2016) before he was against it. Because he was not the leader in 2016 but it's assumed that this time he'll be going into the convention leading but under the needed number. What a hypocrite! He's no better than any other politician. OK, that's par for the course, but no more delusions about "Saint" Bernie please. For sake of sweet justice I'd like to see another candidate leading going into the convention so we can watch Bernie the hypocrite change his position again. 

 

This may be your most laughable post yet. No matter what the case, you realize you are arguing AGAINST democracy, right?

 

It was actually proven by wikileaks that the 2016 elections were biased/rigged against him. And he is the bad guy! 

 

It is almost laughable, the "change his positions" candidate Sanders! You just seem to ignore facts. It is so obvious. 

 

I will look into what you said though. 

 

Here is the take home point in any case... what are the attacks against Bernie? 

 

Age

Bernie Bros

 

lol EVERYONE on earth knows for a stone cold fact. Stone cold! That if those two things are the best an entire establishment machine can come up with, you have got a GREAT candidate on your hands.

 

They can't fight him on policy because they know people love his policies. I see this time and time again on the news and even in here. Nobody cares to actually argue about his policies because they know they are popular and they realize the status quo is not working for anyone but the rich.

 

When you aint got nothin, you attack nothing. And that is exactly what you are seeing.

 

Like I said, I will look into what you said. Do me a favor also, look into how detailed the medical records Sanders already has released are and compare that to the questioning he gets from ever major news channel. Ne has released as or more detailed health records than anyone! It is outright blatant lies and deception, based on nothing... repeated over and over, because that is all they have. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

On 2/21/2020 at 10:42 AM, Cryingdick said:

I had more business savvy and better money management skills while I went through puberty than most adult Americans have today. I was always good at certain things and if you ever think I just got lucky I would challenge you to a paper trading account and we see who does better after a year. All things being equal, there is skill to it. 

Again, you say "I did not get lucky", then right within your own statements, you contradict that.

 

So you had "more business savvy and better skills...."

I am finding it hard to believe, even if we take you at your word, you do not realize by definition that means you were lucky! That is how it works.

 

You are "better than most people" at xyz. You had to be lucky for that to be the case. 

 

What you should come to realize in this exchange is that you have been terribly lucky. What you will actually do is continue to rationalize and think your hard work and success can be attained by all, if only they had a work ethic like you. I know I will never convince you, but hopefully some day you will self realize the truth. And if you ever do that, you will realize that there are people in the world that need more help than you did, whether it be with medical bills or education, and hopefully you will think about them more than "my 401k" losing a few points. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Bernie was FOR the first ballot leader but under the needed number NOT automatically winning (in 2016) before he was against it. Because he was not the leader in 2016 but it's assumed that this time he'll be going into the convention leading but under the needed number. What a hypocrite! He's no better than any other politician. OK, that's par for the course, but no more delusions about "Saint" Bernie please. For sake of sweet justice I'd like to see another candidate leading going into the convention so we can watch Bernie the hypocrite change his position again. 

 

I read about that a little. What stood out was there were obviously two candidates in 2016. What is wrong with waiting until Hillary had 50%? 

 

Anyway, in this case we would have a situation where (for argument's sake) Sanders had 35% and let's say the next closest candidate had 30%. 

 

What are you arguing? Can you explain why, exactly, that candidate with 30% should now have a chance to win. It seems as if all you could be doing is arguing against democracy; arguing against the will of the people. 

 

If that is your opinion, why even have elections? You seem to be against democracy, and I just can't even force myself to think a rational human would think that. So maybe you can explain. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by sucit

[Kelsall]

And now Fox news projecting Bernie will win Nevada.

 

Looks like Pelosi and the DNC are going to have to ramp up their efforts to screw him out of the nomination again.

[Cryingdick]

Only 6% in but 54.6% for Bernie. Is Vegas winner takes all?

[Berkshire]

18 hours ago, sucit said:

What I can do if people are more interested in labels than actual policy? It does not seem to be the case though, look at the polls. So I am not sure what you are even talking about. Why do you make statements and yet the polling indicates the opposite? 

Polling?  No one has ever said that Bernie can't win the Dem nomination.  He can and he might.  The big question is whether he can win the General Election.  That's it and that's all.

 

Even if current polling says Bernie can beat Trump now, you're forgetting that Trump hasn't even gone after Bernie yet and for good reason.  Trump wants Bernie to be the nominee.  But mark my words, if Bernie does become the nominee, Trump and his right wing machine will go after Bernie like he's never seen.  It will be ugly.  Full of vicious lies, and hate, and made-up nonsense.  What happened to Hillary will be nothing compared to what will happen to Bernie.  I literally fear for the man.

 

As for the labels, you should understand that it's not the Bernie Bros or hardcore Dems who will decide this election.  Nor will it be the hardcore Trumpers and lifelong Republicans.  It will be the moderates and independents...the undecideds.  Many of the them are just as disgusted and embarrassed by Trump as you or I.  But they hate the concept of socialism even more.  So they may just hold their noses and vote for Trump because they fear losing their way of life.  Sorry, but that's how many Americans think.

[Cryingdick]

19 hours ago, sucit said:

Again, you say "I did not get lucky", then right within your own statements, you contradict that.

 

So you had "more business savvy and better skills...."

I am finding it hard to believe, even if we take you at your word, you do not realize by definition that means you were lucky! That is how it works.

 

You are "better than most people" at xyz. You had to be lucky for that to be the case. 

 

What you should come to realize in this exchange is that you have been terribly lucky. What you will actually do is continue to rationalize and think your hard work and success can be attained by all, if only they had a work ethic like you. I know I will never convince you, but hopefully some day you will self realize the truth. And if you ever do that, you will realize that there are people in the world that need more help than you did, whether it be with medical bills or education, and hopefully you will think about them more than "my 401k" losing a few points. 

 

I guess by your standards you are either lucky or you aren't. I am hoping my luck will continue and people will reject your premise. I don't feel like taking a $50 trillion dollar spin at the wheel and hoping Bernie makes us all luckier. 

 

At least we know in the elections it will be a matter of pure luck that makes a winner or loser. If that's the case why bother worrying about it?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Cryingdick