US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[up2u2]

And then they begin to like it a whole lot again when they get Medicare and social security, on cheques sent to them by the post office.

And please, spare me the howls of indignation that these aren't 'socialist'. Funny how things stop being socialist when you become a recipient of them. Just another hypocracy of the Der-cons.

Is a road 'Socialist'?

Did you pay for the entire thing yourself?

Here's some terms you need to get your head around. Economics 101

- free rider problem

- externalities

- market failure

- public goods vs private goods

- barriers to entry

Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Nice try anyway.

[samran]

And then they begin to like it a whole lot again when they get Medicare and social security, on cheques sent to them by the post office.

And please, spare me the howls of indignation that these aren't 'socialist'. Funny how things stop being socialist when you become a recipient of them. Just another hypocracy of the Der-cons.

Is a road 'Socialist'?

Did you pay for the entire thing yourself?

Here's some terms you need to get your head around. Economics 101

- free rider problem

- externalities

- market failure

- public goods vs private goods

- barriers to entry

Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Nice try anyway.

You never answered my question. if you paid for the entire thing yourself, and you don't let anyone else use it, then no.

If you didn't then, yes it is a form of socialism.

Was it that hard to read between the lines?

Edited March 29, 2016 by samran

[up2u2]

If Clinton wants to end Bernie Sanders' appeal, she should just give his supporters a job. Apparently, their support and approval of socialism drops as soon as they start to work. Socialism has about as much staying power as a frat party's beer keg.

As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't

The Washington Post establishment media runs a non stop smear campaign on Bernie. Who would have thought. lol

Funny stuff Usernames

Establishment media, Wall Street, Corporate America, Health Industry fat cats, Big Pharma, Coal oil and gas, the wealthy elite they sure will come after Bernie and I am sure Usernames will post every biased media op-ed and gossip he can lay his hands on.

Will the American People buy establishment propaganda again or are they starting to realise they are being conned. Give em hell Bernie.

'Feel the Bern' - 'A Future to Believe In'

"Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't"

In his own words...

Wow 27 years ago. The propaganda smear campaign machine is working overtime. lol

I pray there isn't any footage of me 27 years ago. Seriously, I hope there isn't.

Hang in there Bernie

[sirineou]

helpisgood said, "One issue: Does a US citizen have the right to choose a new home state?

Answer: Yes, of course.

Different issue: Does a politician, who chooses a new home state just prior to running for an office within that state, do so for the purpose of getting the backing of big money and especially Wall Street, which is located within that new home state? Is this more obvious when said politician does get the backing of said big money, and gets to represent them in the US Senate and votes in their interests?

Answer: It sure looks that way.

And, your analogy to choosing her daughter's name fails. I cannot see how that choice can help HRC's career. Certainly, some choices are done for cynical reasons and others are not."

To which I must respond:

Gee, leally? I have to ask the same question of you, what is your point? Are you complaining that Hillary chose NY because it would benefit her? Duh?

Allow me to let you in on an apparent big secret; people often make the choices that benefit them most. How can that be justification for a complaint by anyone except the uninformed, the insecure, and those too inept to do the same thing?

And, your last conclusion is perhaps even more uninformed. Do you really think lannarebirth's criticism of NY as Hilary's home turf was intended to "help HRC's career" or to cast aspersions at the inference she was from NY?

"people often make the choices that benefit them most. "

Yes but do you want politicians making the choices that benefit them the most or do you want politicians that make choices that benefit the country the most?

No need to answer,There is en election coming up. the choice is yours you can answer then,

[up2u2]

Is a road 'Socialist'?

Did you pay for the entire thing yourself?

Here's some terms you need to get your head around. Economics 101

- free rider problem

- externalities

- market failure

- public goods vs private goods

- barriers to entry

Was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Nice try anyway.

You never answered my question. if you paid for the entire thing yourself, and you don't let anyone else use it, then no.

If you didn't then, yes it is a form of socialism.

Was it that hard to read between the lines?

I rest my case.

[samran]

I rest my case.

To rest one's case requires one to have an argument.

FWIW - Bernie isn't anywhere near socialist.

He's a basic bog standard social democrat who understands the concept of market failure. Hardly a threat.

[sgtsabai]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

[chuckd]

If Clinton wants to end Bernie Sanders' appeal, she should just give his supporters a job. Apparently, their support and approval of socialism drops as soon as they start to work. Socialism has about as much staying power as a frat party's beer keg.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't

The Washington Post establishment media runs a non stop smear campaign on Bernie. Who would have thought. lol

Funny stuff Usernames

Establishment media, Wall Street, Corporate America, Health Industry fat cats, Big Pharma, Coal oil and gas, the wealthy elite they sure will come after Bernie and I am sure Usernames will post every biased media op-ed and gossip he can lay his hands on.

Will the American People buy establishment propaganda again or are they starting to realise they are being conned. Give em hell Bernie.

'Feel the Bern' - 'A Future to Believe In'

"Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't"

In his own words...

<snip>

Wow 27 years ago. The propaganda smear campaign machine is working overtime. lol

I pray there isn't any footage of me 27 years ago. Seriously, I hope there isn't.

Hang in there Bernie

Here he is in May 2015 claiming to be a socialist.

...and in October 2015...

[chuckd]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

Some left wingers might also need a refresher course on socialism. If you advocate this type of government then perhaps Australia, Europe or Russia would be more to your liking.

The free enterprise system is what the US was founded on and what made it thrive. Government regulations are what is making it flounder.

Definition of socialism follows:

socialism

noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

Simple Definition of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Full Definition of socialism

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[Boon Mee]

Sanders is so far deep in the Socialist Fever Swamps that to call him what he is - basically a Commie, is the most accurate definition of this abberant individual...

[up2u2]

Bernie slam dunked O'Reilly. He's a slimey character always tries to slip his Right Wing agenda in. Bernie shut him down every time. Great stuff Bernie. I have seen this clip a few times. Not many people get the better of O'Reilly and his establishment propaganda. If they do he always shuts down the interview.

This challenge to Hillary is all about Bernie 'stepping it up a notch' and getting more aggressive when debating the issues. He has tended to go a little easy. His team has got this right, on the issues he needs to start really driving it hard, stay on message take the upper hand in debates and interviews. He is a little too polite and easy going. Time to let the 'mongrel junk yard dog loose'. Affordable Health Care, Publicly funded tuition, $15 minimum wage, Tax on Wall Street, Corporations paying their way, shut down Tax loopholes offshore tax evasion, dial down wasted trillions on wars and repair infrastructure, get the billionaires out of paying bribes to Congress, repeal Citizens United, wealth redistribution, Climate Change.

None of that Republican Right Wing personal attack idiocy. We can do without any more of that.

[up2u2]

Sanders is so far deep in the Socialist Fever Swamps that to call him what he is - basically a Commie, is the most accurate definition of this abberant individual...

You feeling the Bern Boon Mee?

Bernie's a 'commie' now lol

Haters gonna hate.

'Feel the Bern' comrade

[willyumiii]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

" Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist"

It would be a huge improvement it they would read....anything.

Lazy Americans form their opinions on the 15 second sound bites the media is paid to feed them.

Because of this, many have no idea what socialism really is or how much socialism is alread a part of their daily existence in America.

They still believe the 1960s propaganda about socialism.

It was not true then and it is not true now.

It is not communism!

Socialism in America today:

Public roads

Public Schools

Public Parks and recreation facilities

The entire U.S. Military

Social Security

Medicare

And...( drum roll )

The National Football League

Yes, the NFL is a socialist organization

The teams that generate money share that money with the teams that do not generate money and that is socialism

The list goes on and on, if you read and learn the real definition of socialism.

Learn to read..

and Feel the Bern!

Because you won't learn it in a 15 second sound bite from the corporate media.

Edited March 29, 2016 by willyumiii

[bgrassboy]

If Clinton wants to end Bernie Sanders' appeal, she should just give his supporters a job. Apparently, their support and approval of socialism drops as soon as they start to work. Socialism has about as much staying power as a frat party's beer keg.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't

The Washington Post establishment media runs a non stop smear campaign on Bernie. Who would have thought. lol

Funny stuff Usernames

Establishment media, Wall Street, Corporate America, Health Industry fat cats, Big Pharma, Coal oil and gas, the wealthy elite they sure will come after Bernie and I am sure Usernames will post every biased media op-ed and gossip he can lay his hands on.

Will the American People buy establishment propaganda again or are they starting to realise they are being conned. Give em hell Bernie.

'Feel the Bern' - 'A Future to Believe In'

"Your theory would be fine if Bernie was a Socialist. He isn't"

In his own words...

<snip>

Wow 27 years ago. The propaganda smear campaign machine is working overtime. lol

I pray there isn't any footage of me 27 years ago. Seriously, I hope there isn't.

Hang in there Bernie

Here he is in May 2015 claiming to be a socialist.

...and in October 2015...

Thanks Chuckd! The best post I've read from you yet, all be it just links to Bernie. These videos show just how great Bernie is as a candidate.

Now if only he could get the media time, he'd run away with the election.

Feel the bern chuck!

[samran]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

Some left wingers might also need a refresher course on socialism. If you advocate this type of government then perhaps Australia, Europe or Russia would be more to your liking.

The free enterprise system is what the US was founded on and what made it thrive. Government regulations are what is making it flounder.

Definition of socialism follows:

socialism

noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

Simple Definition of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Full Definition of socialism

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

You know I tease you a lot but I always gave you credit for a certain level of intelligence. But calling Australia socialist given we have minimal government ownership, apart from a few States which own legacy infrastructure, and that we are a country which pioneered privatisation of all our major national assets in the 80s and 90s leads me to wonder if you are getting pretty senile in your 9th cycle.

[smotherb]

helpisgood said, "One issue: Does a US citizen have the right to choose a new home state?

Answer: Yes, of course.

Different issue: Does a politician, who chooses a new home state just prior to running for an office within that state, do so for the purpose of getting the backing of big money and especially Wall Street, which is located within that new home state? Is this more obvious when said politician does get the backing of said big money, and gets to represent them in the US Senate and votes in their interests?

Answer: It sure looks that way.

And, your analogy to choosing her daughter's name fails. I cannot see how that choice can help HRC's career. Certainly, some choices are done for cynical reasons and others are not."

To which I must respond:

Gee, leally? I have to ask the same question of you, what is your point? Are you complaining that Hillary chose NY because it would benefit her? Duh?

Allow me to let you in on an apparent big secret; people often make the choices that benefit them most. How can that be justification for a complaint by anyone except the uninformed, the insecure, and those too inept to do the same thing?

And, your last conclusion is perhaps even more uninformed. Do you really think lannarebirth's criticism of NY as Hilary's home turf was intended to "help HRC's career" or to cast aspersions at the inference she was from NY?

"people often make the choices that benefit them most. "

Yes but do you want politicians making the choices that benefit them the most or do you want politicians that make choices that benefit the country the most?

No need to answer,There is en election coming up. the choice is yours you can answer then,

Want in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which one gets full first.

What I want a politician to do and what they do is not necessarily the same thing; and I have little control over that, except my vote.

However, therein lies the real problem. Look at the pitiful choice Americans have in a Clinton-Trump election. Sanders may be better than Clinton, but then we are still stuck with Trump, unless the Republican hierarchy decides to back Cruz. Would a Sanders-Cruz choice be any better?

Are we seriously saying those are the best we have?

I would like to see a box on every ballot which says, "None of the Above." If that box wins, all candidates must go away and are forbidden thereafter to run for any public office; because the public has spoken. The political parties would then have to go through the whole preliminary dance again with new nominees. In the meantime, the bureaucrats would run the government; they do it anyway.

[Trouble]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

"The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it."

That the corporate taxes as a part of the federal revenue have decreased is partially true, however that is only when accounting for a "C" corporations and this does not take into account that "S" corporations now exist which muddy's the waters when it comes to determining the actual corporate taxes paid. S-corporations pay taxes thru individual taxes and the number of S-corporations has grow significantly since adoption in the late 50's. As for the rich not paying their share, if only people would stop listening the the left wing propaganda and look at the facts they might learn something. The internal revenue service makes the data public. For the year 2012 the fact is that the top 1% paid 38/1% of all the personal income taxes. Top 10% paid 70.2% and the top 25% paid 86.4% of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50% paid 2.8%.

You might ask yourself how the government spends the money it gets instead of accusing the rich and corporations of not paying enough or why year after year the government runs a deficit and therefore adds to the national debt? There are about 161 million people in the workforce and there are 320 million people in the population. In 2012 136 million tax returns were filed with an adjusted gross income of 9 trillion of which about 1.2 trillion was collected in taxes. That funded 47% of the revenue with the corporations paying another 11% of the revenue. Every year the government spends about 1.3 trillion more than it takes in adding to the debt. To stop the deficit spending the government would have to double the taxes that everyone paid to begin to break even.

The problem with the whole system is that the liberals think the problem is a result of lack of tax revenue from the rich when they are already paying the largest percentage of all personal income tax paid and yet it is never enough. The reason Clinton was able to balance his budgets toward the end of his term is because the economy was good, tax revenue at all income levels was good, and he was willing to change at least some of the governments spending habits, and yes entitlement spending as well. Today the increase in programs dealing with disability, food stamp, welfare, and other benefits is crippling the governments ability to keep pace. Congress has expanded benefits (including Obama care) which it can't pay for. The single largest increases in government spending over the years are related to entitlements in one form or another. The result is a decreasing number of people supporting a system in which an ever increasing number of people are seeking entitlements. That's the real problem. Then to add to it people like Bernie Sanders (who is one of the few candidates that really believes what he says), who wants to make things like college education free and add more programs to the list of entitlements. To you it is all the fault of the greedy rich and corporations who don't pay their fair share. To me it is all the fault of way too many people sucking off the system. When it becomes easier to game the system than to work for a living we will all be in trouble, big time. At least the FDR programs really put people to work and really left society with something in the projects that were built. Today's programs just pay people not to work.

[sirineou]

helpisgood said, "One issue: Does a US citizen have the right to choose a new home state?

Answer: Yes, of course.

Different issue: Does a politician, who chooses a new home state just prior to running for an office within that state, do so for the purpose of getting the backing of big money and especially Wall Street, which is located within that new home state? Is this more obvious when said politician does get the backing of said big money, and gets to represent them in the US Senate and votes in their interests?

Answer: It sure looks that way.

And, your analogy to choosing her daughter's name fails. I cannot see how that choice can help HRC's career. Certainly, some choices are done for cynical reasons and others are not."

To which I must respond:

Gee, leally? I have to ask the same question of you, what is your point? Are you complaining that Hillary chose NY because it would benefit her? Duh?

Allow me to let you in on an apparent big secret; people often make the choices that benefit them most. How can that be justification for a complaint by anyone except the uninformed, the insecure, and those too inept to do the same thing?

And, your last conclusion is perhaps even more uninformed. Do you really think lannarebirth's criticism of NY as Hilary's home turf was intended to "help HRC's career" or to cast aspersions at the inference she was from NY?

"people often make the choices that benefit them most. "

Yes but do you want politicians making the choices that benefit them the most or do you want politicians that make choices that benefit the country the most?

No need to answer,There is en election coming up. the choice is yours you can answer then,

Want in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which one gets full first.

What I want a politician to do and what they do is not necessarily the same thing; and I have little control over that, except my vote.

However, therein lies the real problem. Look at the pitiful choice Americans have in a Clinton-Trump election. Sanders may be better than Clinton, but then we are still stuck with Trump, unless the Republican hierarchy decides to back Cruz. Would a Sanders-Cruz choice be any better?

Are we seriously saying those are the best we have?

I would like to see a box on every ballot which says, "None of the Above." If that box wins, all candidates must go away and are forbidden thereafter to run for any public office; because the public has spoken. The political parties would then have to go through the whole preliminary dance again with new nominees. In the meantime, the bureaucrats would run the government; they do it anyway.

I hear your frustration, you are not along out there. But I don't understand why you think a Sanders democratic nomination would insure a Trump presidency? or did I misunderstand?

All the polls have Sanders beating Trump by double digits.

[CWMcMurray]

Bernie is basically a "New Deal" Democrat or Independent however you wish to call it. Some of our less educated right wingers should actually read up on what socialism is and isn't and he isn't a Socialist. He channels FDR and as we all know the plutocrats, corporations, and their whores in Congress and ignorant sheeple like teabaggers hate the New Deal. You know the teabaggers calling for the destruction of government while saying "hands off my Social Security", ahem and which party is always trying to cut SS, ah duh? Why do they hate, it might take a couple of bucks out of their greedy, selfish pockets and put them into the pockets of those that actually earned and deserve them. The rich and corporations haven't paid their fair share in many years and the US is suffering for it. The government is there for the people in spite of all the right wing Republican propaganda against it. Hence the slash and burn technique the Republicans have applied to the government, cut the budgets so deeply the government can't take care of the people and then blame the government. Bernie wants to stop this. He wants to actually work for the people like he always has.

Some left wingers might also need a refresher course on socialism. If you advocate this type of government then perhaps Australia, Europe or Russia would be more to your liking.

The free enterprise system is what the US was founded on and what made it thrive. Government regulations are what is making it flounder.

Definition of socialism follows:

socialism

noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

Simple Definition of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Full Definition of socialism

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

By those definitions you have stated ... Bernie is NOT a socialist

He is not promoting government ownership of any industries ...

He is simply talking about taxing the corporations and wealthy, eliminating all of the loop holes they are using to avoid paying their fair share of taxes

Then using those additional funds for setting up universal health care and extending the public education system from K-12 to K-16, dial down wasted trillions on wars, repair infrastructure, Climate change, and trying to get the billionaires out of paying bribes to Congress by repealing Citizens United

This does not follow with your definitions of scialism

Edited March 29, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[CWMcMurray]

Sanders is so far deep in the Socialist Fever Swamps that to call him what he is - basically a Commie, is the most accurate definition of this abberant individual...

Completely disagree .. Communism is about government control of the means of production

In no way is Bernie suggesting that

Definition of communism:

a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

It seems to me that many people throw around the words like Communism and Socialism without even understand what they mean

You can look at my previous posts and see that I have come out against those on the left when they try to label and disparage those on the right

I also think it equally wrong when done by those on the right to those on the left..

If you don't like a policy ... Fine... Argue against it if you can..

But it is not correct to put Labels on people to try and diminish them or then be able to discard their positions or belief

[CWMcMurray]

For those that think Bernie voters will just fall in line and vote for Hillary... Think again

Good interview with Susan Sarandon

Be sure to watch the whole interview at below website...

http://theslot.jezebel.com/heres-susan-sarandon-suggesting-donald-trump-might-be-b-1767699340

Talking about voting for Hillary if a Hillary - Trump election

---quote---

“But I think a lot of people are [saying], ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to do that.”

“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.

“I don’t know,” Sarandon said. “I’m gonna see what happens.”

“Really?” Hayes said, incredulously. “I cannot believe, as you’re watching the rise of Donald Trump...”

“Well, you know, some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately,” Sarandon said. “If he gets in, then things will really explode.”

[mrwebb8825]

Back On Topic: I'd love to see a debate between HC and Bernie in NY, BUT, have all the questions come from the floor and NOT a moderator with an agenda. Something along the lines of a really big TownHall.

Give each one 15 minutes for an opening statement like lawyers in a courtroom and then field questions from the floor so neither one has pre written and rehearsed answers. Let their true colors shine through. That would pretty much finish the need for more debates.

[helpisgood]

I wonder if HRC, with her sizeable lead, thinks it's prudent to duck as many debates as possible until the Dem Convention. There seems to be a little more heat about the controversial server lately. The article discusses what a federal judge, who said that there was “evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith," ruled in a decision regarding that server and its emails:

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/second-judge-says-clintons-email-setup-may-have-been-in-bad-faith/

Also, this one's interesting because it comes from someone, viz., Edward Snowden, (love him or hate him) who should know a lot about a secured server and classified info:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server

Edited March 30, 2016 by helpisgood

[Chicog]

I wonder if HRC, with her sizeable lead, thinks it's prudent to duck as many debates as possible until the Dem Convention. There seems to be a little more heat about the controversial server lately. The article discusses what a federal judge, who said that there was “evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith," ruled in a decision regarding that server and its emails:

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/second-judge-says-clintons-email-setup-may-have-been-in-bad-faith/

Also, this one's interesting because it comes from someone, viz., Edward Snowden, (love him or hate him) who should know a lot about a secured server and classified info:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server

Snowden is almost as big a joke as the internal security at the NSA.

[keemapoot]

I wonder if HRC, with her sizeable lead, thinks it's prudent to duck as many debates as possible until the Dem Convention. There seems to be a little more heat about the controversial server lately. The article discusses what a federal judge, who said that there was “evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith," ruled in a decision regarding that server and its emails:

http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/second-judge-says-clintons-email-setup-may-have-been-in-bad-faith/

Also, this one's interesting because it comes from someone, viz., Edward Snowden, (love him or hate him) who should know a lot about a secured server and classified info:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-email-server

"Bad faith" sounds like careful positioning of the wrongdoing as only a civil wrong, but not criminal. I"m guessing that the Clinton machine is coming up with a pre-November strategy, (as attested to by this judge) to admit an error in judgement, a civil wrong, and will apologize and maybe pay a fine or something, in order to diffuse the issue of possible criminal liability.

Just guessing....

[smotherb]

helpisgood said, "One issue: Does a US citizen have the right to choose a new home state?

Answer: Yes, of course.

Different issue: Does a politician, who chooses a new home state just prior to running for an office within that state, do so for the purpose of getting the backing of big money and especially Wall Street, which is located within that new home state? Is this more obvious when said politician does get the backing of said big money, and gets to represent them in the US Senate and votes in their interests?

Answer: It sure looks that way.

And, your analogy to choosing her daughter's name fails. I cannot see how that choice can help HRC's career. Certainly, some choices are done for cynical reasons and others are not."

To which I must respond:

Gee, leally? I have to ask the same question of you, what is your point? Are you complaining that Hillary chose NY because it would benefit her? Duh?

Allow me to let you in on an apparent big secret; people often make the choices that benefit them most. How can that be justification for a complaint by anyone except the uninformed, the insecure, and those too inept to do the same thing?

And, your last conclusion is perhaps even more uninformed. Do you really think lannarebirth's criticism of NY as Hilary's home turf was intended to "help HRC's career" or to cast aspersions at the inference she was from NY?

"people often make the choices that benefit them most. "

Yes but do you want politicians making the choices that benefit them the most or do you want politicians that make choices that benefit the country the most?

No need to answer,There is en election coming up. the choice is yours you can answer then,

Want in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which one gets full first.

What I want a politician to do and what they do is not necessarily the same thing; and I have little control over that, except my vote.

However, therein lies the real problem. Look at the pitiful choice Americans have in a Clinton-Trump election. Sanders may be better than Clinton, but then we are still stuck with Trump, unless the Republican hierarchy decides to back Cruz. Would a Sanders-Cruz choice be any better?

Are we seriously saying those are the best we have?

I would like to see a box on every ballot which says, "None of the Above." If that box wins, all candidates must go away and are forbidden thereafter to run for any public office; because the public has spoken. The political parties would then have to go through the whole preliminary dance again with new nominees. In the meantime, the bureaucrats would run the government; they do it anyway.

I hear your frustration, you are not along out there. But I don't understand why you think a Sanders democratic nomination would insure a Trump presidency? or did I misunderstand?

All the polls have Sanders beating Trump by double digits.

Yes, you have misunderstood. I have no idea who will be elected. I have no more faith in the American public than I do any of the candidates, the polls, or the antiquated electoral college system we still allow.

Since both Clinton and Sanders show a triumph over Trump in the polls—see below—why are so many Democrats even concerned? Just make it a Clinton-Sanders or Sanders-Clinton ticket. Should be a sure win, shouldn’t it?

If the polls are so dependable, why haven’t the Republicans simply given up? In fact, why don’t we just use the polls and forget about the election?

Clinton vs. Trump—six polls, all Clinton—+11.2 average realclear

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Sanders vs. Trump—five polls, all Sanders—+17.4 average realclear

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

[up2u2]

Yes, you have misunderstood. I have no idea who will be elected. I have no more faith in the American public than I do any of the candidates, the polls, or the antiquated electoral college system we still allow.

Since both Clinton and Sanders show a triumph over Trump in the polls—see below—why are so many Democrats even concerned? Just make it a Clinton-Sanders or Sanders-Clinton ticket. Should be a sure win, shouldn’t it?

If the polls are so dependable, why haven’t the Republicans simply given up? In fact, why don’t we just use the polls and forget about the election?

Clinton vs. Trump—six polls, all Clinton—+11.2 average realclear

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Sanders vs. Trump—five polls, all Sanders—+17.4 average realclear

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

Many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip.

They don't come any better than Bernie when it comes to a debate. See, Hillary has to make sure she doesn't make the establishment nervous but still make the right 'noises' to placate the electorate. She has to conflate and 'double speak' and avoid. Whereas Bernie couldn't give a rats. The wealthy elite, Wall Street, Corporate America, Big Health Insurance, Big Pharma, damn straight he's coming after you, Bernie wants to cut them off at the knees and makes no bones about it they have been thieving off the American people for 30 years.

It would be a good idea to piss the establishment media off and have ordinary folk asking the questions. Great idea. All the establishment media are just Corporate shills.

[Boon Mee]

Sanders is so far deep in the Socialist Fever Swamps that to call him what he is - basically a Commie, is the most accurate definition of this abberant individual...

You feeling the Bern Boon Mee?

Bernie's a 'commie' now lol

Haters gonna hate.

'Feel the Bern' comrade

Just calling a spade a spade, eh?

[Boon Mee]

Redacted

Edited March 30, 2016 by Boon Mee

[willyumiii]

"Since both Clinton and Sanders show a triumph over Trump in the polls—see below—why are so many Democrats even concerned? Just make it a Clinton-Sanders or Sanders-Clinton ticket. Should be a sure win, shouldn’t it? "

No, it will never happen.

Where Hillary would do anything to win ( like the way she tries to mimic anything Bernie says or does that gets a positive reaction ) she would be happy to have Bernie as a running mate if it would help her.

But Bernie would never accept the offer,

Bernie's goal is to get the people back in control of their government.

He is not seeking fame and fortune.

​Helping Hillary win would be working against his goals.

Hillary is exactly the kind of corporation owned, corrupt politician that Bernie is fighting against.

Asking Hillary to be his running mate would be against everything he represents.

​Bernie is an honest man with integrity.

He would never sell out his goals and his supporters just for a guaranteed win.

In fact, if he did sell out, he would lose much of his support.

Feel the Bern Baby!