Who are the people who have the money, your “We”. It is owned by someone else, not me and probably not you. Do you really think the people that have the money, comprising of your “We” are going to freely give it up for compliance with policies enacted by a socialist, or will they protect it anyway they can. I think they will protect their money, which is not our money.
Thanks eatbees. You saved me about 15 minutes as I was about to try and explain what you were able to express in four sentences. Your right BTW, we do indeed have the money!!
2 Likes
FDR was a democratic socialist. He won four presidential elections. People are demanding stuff. They always do. Normally the rich elites get all the stuff. This year the peasants are after stuff too.
4 Likes
The reason a progressive Democrat might find Hillary untrustworthy is that she sometimes condescends to those to the left of her, misrepresenting both the views themselves and their chance of success, in order to portray her incremental, piecework approach as the only workable solution in contrast to the radical, wild-eyed and naive ideas of those to the left of her — such as opposing the Iraq war, or agreeing to talk to Iran and Cuba (as Obama proposed in 2008), or Bernie’s single-payer proposal now. Hillary is a smart lady and in her heart of hearts she probably knows better, so her attempts to denigrate views broadly held by the members of her own party strikes some people as disingenous.
8 Likes
Maybe even more.
2 Likes
Oh, and they suspect that she does this for personal advantage, and to keep the cash flowing from big-money donors, a view I don’t personally share. I just think she’s cautious by nature and has acquired a lot of emotional armor in her years in the political arena, and maybe just needs to shed that armor (if possible) and loosen up a little. This is a year when some of those supposedly wild-eyed ideas Bernie has may actually resonate with a majority of Americans, especially considering the level of crazy we’re seeing from the other side.
3 Likes
If they got their money by benefitting from the rules of the game in the United States of America, a collective enterprise founded by WE the people, then it is in at least some sense “our” money. Our road system, public schools, policing and military are all socialist by your definition, because we tax our citizens in order to provide services — that’s what a state does. The details of that are up for discussion, but the taxing power of the United States government is enshrined in our Constitution.
5 Likes
Then you have no real contact with most Clinton supporters.
1 Like
Nice try.
2 Likes
I wish you would understand her history in women’s rights, children rights, etc. and you would understand there is more to her then just another politician. Yet, you are pointing out that she is untrustworthy, why are you pointing her out as untrustworthy when you actually mean that all politicians are untrustworthy. Sanders has been a politician almost his entire life, that is why he voted against the Brady Bill, gave the gun manufactures an exemption from product liability, yet now is “reconsidering”. Doesn’t that make him as untrustworthy as Hillary by your definition. Sanders is also a member of the “elite” as he has been in Washington before Hillary and Bill. Sanders entered Congress in 1990, Bill arrived in Washington in 1993.
No he wasn’t. Eugene Debs was their main man during the era that Roosevelt was in office. Roosevelt was simply a traditional liberal Democrat.
1 Like
A lot of people are convinced Hillary and her husband are worth a billion buck or so. You don’t make that kind of money giving motivational speeches. A lot of people, both Republican and Democrat think the speaking fees are cover for bribes. Out in the country Hillary has a lot of baggage.
1 Like
A traditional liberal Democrat. By today’s standards a flaming Communist.
2 Likes
“Sanders is also a member of the “elite” as he has been in Washington before Hillary and Bill. Sanders entered Congress in 1990, Bill arrived in Washington in 1993.”
I finally realized you’re just trolling. Your arguments are preposterous. Stop wasting everyone’s time.
4 Likes
As president Hillary can give the Republicans a good talking to, like she did down on Wall Street. That’ll solve the problem.
2 Likes
I agree that the state taxes its citizens for the services the state provide, the received taxes by the government is “our” money. We are already taxed, I really don’t think the 1%ers think their money is “our money” and are not going to pay more taxes to send other people’s kids to go to school, or pay for their health care to the extent that Sanders is proposing. Again, there is a limit to taxes that the middle class can afford to pay without the economy going into a recession again, and the 1%ers, have the resources to evade the taxes, by buying loopholes or moving to another country. If Sanders is proposing that all children can go the college free of charge, that means the taxes must be increased by the tuition costs of 23% of the US Citizens, (I just checked the percentage of US citizens are under 18 for 2014, number of children under 18, 73,337,123. Tuition $25,000, total cost by taxes: $1,833,428,072,000. Total population 318,857,056 total cost of "state services to every man, woman and child in the United States, $5,750. A family of 4 would pay $23,000, which would be every year, not just paying their own child’s college costs. The total population over 18 is 245,519,933 therefore the cost to every adult would be $7,467.53, or a married couple would pay $14,935.)
Is that really reasonable?
I don’t understand your comment. I don’t blame HRC for Benghazi, not for one minute. I do blame her for her vote on invading Iraq. That was a shameful time for the Democratic Party in general. And, to be honest, that’s what swayed me toward Obama, for which I am glad in hindsight. Still, I will support her if she is the nominee. So, what’s your gripe with me?
2 Likes
LOL! You may be right or it might have been I told them to cut it out. I’m glad someone remembered that. It was funny when she said it. I wish Bernie was a prick once in a while. He could use it as Hillary’s pledge to getting tough on Wall Street.
1 Like
RealClearPolitics doesn’t show any previous polling of Iowa by ARG, so there isn’t much basis for speculating one way or the other whether this one poll represents movement in Bernie’s direction or not.
But it is interesting to note that ARG did previously poll New Hampshire, about 3 weeks ago, and shows a 6 point swing in Bernie’s favor over that period (which might or might not reflect real movement, considering the 5 point margin of error in the most recent poll and a 4 point one in the previous one). And the previous ARG New Hampshire poll showed Hillary ahead, one of the few polls that have…which suggests that the ARG likely voter model probably isn’t inherently unfavorable to Hillary or favorable to Bernie.
Overall, I’d have to say there does seem to be some real momentum in Bernie’s direction in Iowa, and continued strength in New Hampshire (though it’s more of a mixed picture in New Hampshire as some polls have showed respectable gains for Hillary there).
Looks to me like both Iowa and New Hampshire could go either way. Fun for us political junkies, and no doubt exhilarating to Bernie’s campaign…and probably highly motivating, and perhaps at least mildly worrisome, to the Clinton campaign.
If we start to see any substantial movement in Bernie’s direction in the South Carolina and Nevada contests, that mild worry in the Clinton campaign will quickly turn to severe heartburn. So far though, no sign of that.
And in general, not much sign of Bernie increasing his standing among minority voters, which is crucial to winning the nomination, or even staying competitive through Super Tuesday. The one poll that I did see that might give Bernie’s team some reassurance in that area is the recent Field Poll that showed that Bernie’s support among Latino voters in California had increased from about 3% in may to something like 36 or 37% now. That’s not a bad trajectory, and there’s still a lot of time before the California contest (and I think he is behind by only about 10 points overall in California).
Unfortunately for Bernie, the nomination may well be nailed down before California even votes, and as of right now Bernie isn’t making the kinds of gains among minorities in early states like South Carolina that he would need, especially given how quickly time is running out for him to make those gains. Which leaves his team hoping that a sweep of Iowa and New Hampshire gives him enough of a boost to at least significantly exceed expectations in SC and Nevada and maintain a narrative of viability going forward.
2 Likes
You might think that, but I want the facts, is there any evidence or statements from any donors to verify what you "think? Republicans claimed that a Canadian company had given money to the fund for access to government, but the Canadian proved that the timing of the payment was not relevant to his contact with the government.