Abandonment of the Middle Class by MSM
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
It is the indoctrination here about socialism what is giving it an bad name. What Bernie proposed is working already in Europe for more than 40 years. We rather stick with an corrupt capitalistic system; results known. In Europe they have therefore decent healthcare for everyone, free schools (until University levels) an progressive sliding scale tax system ( the rich pay up to 70%, the poor max 10%), infrastructure which works, decent minimum wages, hardly any unemployment, an clean environment, even the refugee's get an roof above their heads as well start-up money, plenty of clean energy; no more coal. Due to our capitalistic system we will never achieve the same living standards due to our antique laws in all area's, such as voting, taxes, schools, environment, energy etc.which stops development in kids as well grown-ups. Especially in the "Bibble belts", "Coal belt", "Rust belt", "Slave belt"and an huge "Dumb belt" they don't have "social" money to help these backwards area's due to our government structure as well States structure; it is certainly not an UNITED States. Social services are destroyed one by one, instead of improved, such as the destruction of Planned Parenthood as an example. Socialism works for everyone, not solely for the rich as it does here. The difference between socialism and capitalism is as follows: Socialism is for making life better for everyone. Capitalism is solely for money (and who can grab the most of it); not for an better life for everyone.
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote: Bernie would do as well as or better that Trump in working with Congress. How are you so sure of this? Bernie is a registered Independent that caucuses with the Democratic Party. He has been in Congress for twenty-six years and has only succeeded at getting a whopping three pieces of his sponsored legislation passed into law and two of those three are renaming post offices in his home state!! Please explain to me and everyone else how someone who has been in Congress for twenty-six years and has only managed to get one piece of legislation (that wasn't renaming a post office) passed into law will somehow be able to strong arm Congress to bend to his will? Chet Ruminski Wrote: And once people realize that Bernie would benefit the entire country he will be a force to deal with. Sanders is the white knight savior for this Country and the world. His plan of fairness will instill another conception of the United States to the world. That of a friend.
Goodness gracious man. Get a room. The white knight savior?! Someone has drank just a little too much white kool-aid. No one man or woman can single-handedly waive a magic wand and rid the country and world of all strife and conflict. What do you think the tens of millions of people who vehemently disagree with everything that Bernie Sanders stands for will do if he were somehow elected President? Bend over and worship him because he's your white knight in shining armor? Or do you think it's more likely that they would react in a way that would make their reactions to Obama's Presidency look like child's play? Obama was a moderate who actually tried to work with the opposition party and they still made his life a living hell. Have you honestly convinced yourself that the Republicans would simply roll over and play dead if Bernie were somehow elected President?
This is why I think it's imperative that Americans understand basic civics. The Executive Branch is one third of the Federal Government. The other branches are co-equal branches that provide a check and balance among the other branches. Then we get to state and local politics. That's where the vast majority of things that actually affect your day to day life take place. Yet only a tiny fraction of Americans actually participate in state and local elections. Ask anyone who their city councilman, state representative, or state senator is and I'll wager that 95% or more of respondents will give you a blank stare. Donald's day to day actions are fodder for late-night comedians, but they pale in comparison to the decisions made by local school boards, your city council, and your state government.
-
-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote: I have a better one than that. Explain to me how a self avowed socialist reached national prominence and in spite of all opposition is still viable. Who's saying he's still viable? And it's quite easy to explain Bernie's rise to prominence in the 2016 campaign. Multiple Democrats, myself included, weren't terribly happy with the junior varsity individuals who tried to take on Secretary Clinton in the primary. Just because I wound up supporting her in the election didn't mean that I wanted to give her a free pass. The best way to vet a candidate is to make it difficult for them to win the primary.
Republicans Jim Chaffee and Jim Webb and a governor from a deeply blue state named Martin O'Malley were her only other challengers. Is it of any surprise that a little known Independent Senator who caucuses with the Democrats was able to give her somewhat of a challenge. And I italicize somewhat because because 3,708,294 more Democrats voted for Secretary Clinton in the primary than they did for Senator Sanders. I'm not sure if you understand math, so let me put this a different way - 16,914,722 >13,206,428. Oh, and 65,853,516 > 62,984,825.
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
TJ Wrote: I loved Bernie the man but not candidate. He wanted to provide all w/o any explanation of how it was paid for. I hope he well enough to run in '20 but chooses more wisely. In early '21 a cabinet position. In Bernie's head, he would have the top 1% pay more in taxes, how to fund his socialist ideas, simple isn't it? The republicans on the other hand want to give tax breaks to the top 1% or the ultra wealthy, and make the poor and middle class pay more of their trickle down agenda. Just because a wealthy entity receives a tax break doesn't mean it'll trickle down to the lower class of people, this was disproven many times in the past. Some call it balancing their budget on the backs of poor and middle class or income Americans. We don't want that, do we? I don't see Sanders as being the white knight, he didn't have much appeal to voters of color, Latinos and black Americans. Had his appeal been greater to these demographics, he may have had a chance, as it stands, Obama got blacks to get out and vote, it was a movement, but as it turned out, Obama some say turned his back on black voters, they expected more of him. Clinton wasn't appealing enough to black voters either. I watch liberal media (back on topic) like NBC, ABC, PBS, and it seems they're more focused on bringing this presidency to an end, and not focusing at all on what democrats can bring to the table for 2018 and 2020. If anyone watches FOX, they're always presenting republican politicians in a positive manner, about how great they're going to make things for Americans, I'm still waiting for that to happen. Conservative media is always trying to drag liberals through the mud by saying how much money and jobs we're costing the government and republican voters.
-
|