The Official World Politics Thread - All Breaking News here.
Options
Comments
-
I absolutely have not been following at all since November. ? is getting redundant. I honestly don't give a ? who wins cause nothing is going to change at all.
-
This election is lame, trumps going to win because he says what white people wish they could say with impunity.
-
I'm just gonna leave this right here
http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/
[img]https://scontent-lax3-1.? .fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12552759_1749091165311090_3191264149876155067_n.jpg?oh=6a15cacb1ca1e6306d8398a8154bf7ab&oe=5739474B[/img][img][/img] -
Ahem...I adore Bernie Sanders.
I agree with his message of fairness and I share his outrage over inequality and corporate abuses. I think his righteous populism has captured the moment perfectly. I respect the uplifting campaign he has run. I admire his authenticity.
And I am convinced Democrats would be insane to nominate him.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is a dreary candidate. She has, again, failed to connect with voters. Her policy positions are cautious and uninspiring. Her reflexive secrecy causes a whiff of scandal to follow her everywhere. She seems calculating and phony.
And yet if Democrats hope to hold the presidency in November, they’ll need to hold their noses and nominate Clinton.
Ultimately, I expect that’s what Democrats will do — because as much as they love Sanders , they loathe Donald Trump more. It seems more evident each day that Republicans have lost their collective reason and are beginning to accept the notion that Trump will be their nominee. And I doubt Democrats will make an anti-immigrant bigot the president by nominating a socialist to run against him.
Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.
Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”
But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”
Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “People want to criticize me, okay,” and “Fine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire and former New York mayor who floated a trial balloon over the weekend about an independent run, knows this. As t he New York Times reported: “If Republicans were to nominate Mr. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz, a hard-line conservative, and Democrats chose Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bloomberg . . . has told allies he would be likely to run.”
President Obama seems to know this, too — which would explain why he tiptoed beyond his official neutrality to praise Clinton in an interview with Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “I think that what Hillary presents is a recognition that translating values into governance and delivering the goods is ultimately the job of politics,” he said. He portrayed Sanders as “the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before.”
It doesn’t speak well of Clinton that, next to her, a 74-year-old guy who has been in politics for four decades is a bright and shiny object. The #feelthebern phenomenon has at least as much to do with Clinton as with Sanders: Democrats are eager for an alternative to her inauthentic politics and cautious policies.
I share their frustration with Clinton. But that doesn’t make Sanders a rational choice. -
This election makes me nervous. I don't even follow politics like that either. All I know is I wouldn't trust trump as the president or this Clinton lady. Articles I've read about Bernie sound good to me explaining whatever idea he presented, bUT I can understand how his plans with taxes and stuff would upset a lot of people. I don't trust trump or Clinton to handle anything with another country too well. Very scary election.
-
I'm tired of all these holier-than-thou Sanders dickriders acting like anyone who doesn't share their religious-like belief in Bernie's "political revolution" is some paid Wall Street shill.
The same gerrymandered voting districts that have produced backwards white supremacist congressmen for 200 years are suddenly gonna be down with free college and single payer health care? ? Please. -
Swiffness! wrote: »I'm tired of all these holier-than-thou Sanders dickriders acting like anyone who doesn't share their religious-like belief in Bernie's "political revolution" is some paid Wall Street shill.
The same gerrymandered voting districts that have produced backwards white supremacist congressmen for 200 years are suddenly gonna be down with free college and single payer health care? ? Please.
Most of them are -
Swiffness! wrote: »I'm tired of all these holier-than-thou Sanders dickriders acting like anyone who doesn't share their religious-like belief in Bernie's "political revolution" is some paid Wall Street shill.
The same gerrymandered voting districts that have produced backwards white supremacist congressmen for 200 years are suddenly gonna be down with free college and single payer health care? ? Please.
Most of them are
these stans been getting out of pocket as of late tho. The reactions to Paul Krugman calling ? on his health care plan were absurd, he said himself it was like hatemail from Rush Limbaugh fans. Just wait until Bernie probably loses the South Carolina primary, you'll see a lot of these "anti-racist" white progressive activists let the mask slip & get in they cac bag about how black people weren't intelligent enough to recognize a old jewish senator as their savior. -
plate of ? or bowl of ? ..
on the menu every four years .. run to the ballots and place ur order folks. lol -
Bernie Sanders - all that enthusiasm and theory will smack into the reality of the US Govt - a slow moving, decentralized, $500b budget defense dept war machine, a country that's running half a trillion in annual deficits, in a low inflation, low wage growth environment.
Good luck getting a budget through Congress Bernie.
There are no good choices. I haven't been moved by anyone's campaign -
People really think Bernie is going to invigorate people to vote Republicans out of Congress. LMAO. Does he know that they actually earn those seats in overwhelmingly republican counties that are gerrymandered to remain that way? I want to know how this dude will be able to do things that Obama, and even Clinton couldn't get done. At least when Obama was running, people saw the horror that Bush bought about, but the political gamesmanship of the right has obfuscated all of that knowledge, and Obama's presidency has proven that the enemy is truly formidable. Running on an even more dreamy platform doesn't seam reasonable, and it discredits the things Obama actually did get done rather then building on top of them. I guess with Trump running a reality show campaign, you need as much crazy on the other side. This entire thing is ridiculous.
-
Swiffness! wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »I'm tired of all these holier-than-thou Sanders dickriders acting like anyone who doesn't share their religious-like belief in Bernie's "political revolution" is some paid Wall Street shill.
The same gerrymandered voting districts that have produced backwards white supremacist congressmen for 200 years are suddenly gonna be down with free college and single payer health care? ? Please.
Most of them are
these stans been getting out of pocket as of late tho. The reactions to Paul Krugman calling ? on his health care plan were absurd, he said himself it was like hatemail from Rush Limbaugh fans. Just wait until Bernie probably loses the South Carolina primary, you'll see a lot of these "anti-racist" white progressive activists let the mask slip & get in they cac bag about how black people weren't intelligent enough to recognize a old jewish senator as their savior.
I mean... conservatives have been saying that same thing about us since we earned our right vote. People care entirely too much about his "supporters," as opposed to the man himself and his policies. Whenever I choose to vote I do so based upon what I believe to be good for myself, my family & the country in which I live. Could give a ? about the reactions of other folks and their opinion of what is best for me.
It's starting to remind me of the Kobe haters that were steady ragging on him throughout his career because they deemed his fans "annoying."
Now in regards to this article... people have already been saying that stuff about Sanders since he started picking up steam. This just comes off as yet another attempt, by the establishment media, to reshape the narrative so that the general public will start feeling apprehensive about his electability and vote for Hilary against their own preferences. However, when you look at the polls we see that Bernie significantly wins against all of the republican candidates. While the polling for Hilary against Republican candidates are much closer races. -
Yeah I've been one of the people saying I think I would rather have Bernie than Hillary, but I'm worried that he could win the nomination but could not win the White House. And this article makes a good point, the Republican candidates, Faux News and that whole machine have put almost 0 effort into attacking Bernie so far. If he became the nominee, it's all eyes on him and I think they could scare too many people out of electing him.
He's a 74 year old democratic socialist. Sanders supporters hate when you say he can't win the national election, but it's a risk. And the risk you're taking is making DONALD ? TRUMP the leader of the free world in which case RIP everybody. Stakes is high b. Even if it's not Trump on the right, all those people are insane and I'm no big Hillary fan but we'd be better off with Hillary than Cruz or any of those clowns. -
Bernie would lose the general election it would be like John Kerry all over again
-
Yeah I've been one of the people saying I think I would rather have Bernie than Hillary, but I'm worried that he could win the nomination but could not win the White House. And this article makes a good point, the Republican candidates, Faux News and that whole machine have put almost 0 effort into attacking Bernie so far. If he became the nominee, it's all eyes on him and I think they could scare the average American out of electing him.
He's a 74 year old democratic socialist. Sanders supporters hate when you say he can't win the national election, but it's a risk. And the risk you're taking is making DONALD ? TRUMP the leader of the free world in which case RIP everybody. Stakes is high b. Even if it's not Trump on the right, all those people are insane and I'm no big Hillary fan but we'd be better off with Hillary than Cruz or any of those clowns.A Quinnipiac University poll last month looked at the national scene and concluded that Mr. Sanders is as formidable as Mrs. Clinton in a general election showdown. He led Mr. Trump by eight points in that poll; Mrs. Clinton led Mr. Trump by six. Mr. Sanders beat Mr. Cruz by 10 points; Mrs. Clinton beat him by five.
“The truth of the matter is the polls are showing the more electable candidate, by far, is Sen. Bernie Sanders,” said Jeff Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager. “You can say in a TV ad whatever you want to say, but that doesn’t make it true.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/12/why-the-gop-is-more-likely-than-clinton-to-target-sanders/The answer, if this thesis turns out to be true, is actually simple. Presidents are elected in general elections, not in primaries and caucuses that choose the nominees. General elections are not decided by the pool of voters in the Democratic and Republican nominating campaigns, but by the broader poll of voters in the general election campaign where the winner is usually the candidate who can win the most votes from political independents and members of the other party in the decisive vote on Election Day on the first Tuesday in November.
It is very possible Ms. Clinton could have a strong lead among registered Democrats but because her negative ratings are high and her trust ratings are low she could have difficulty winning the votes of many political independents and Republicans, compared to Mr. Sanders. It is equally possible that for the very reasons Mr. Trump holds a strong lead among Republicans he antagonizes large numbers of independents and Democrats, compared to Mr. Sanders.
http://observer.com/2015/12/shock-poll-bernie-sanders-is-the-most-electable-candidate-in-either-party/
-
Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
-
Bernie would lose the general election it would be like John Kerry all over again
I don't believe Hilary Clinton will inspire a lot of the Obama voters to go back to the booth. Also, based on her likability ratings it's highly unlikely that she'll be able to grab the necessary independents or cross-party voters needed to win. -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol. -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying? -
EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws and mandatory minimums?? mannn don't even get me started! lol -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? didn't feel as ? up as it is right now.. -
Hilary not getting ? to the voting booth...straight up, she hella ingenuine IMO and she ain't saying ? , safe not getting me out of bed that day
I'll let the chips fall where they may but if I'm going be moved to vote, it won't be for Hilary
As long as Bernie keep taking that ? , I'll consider participating in this fantasy where votes actually mean something
A ? and a woman back to back....seem unlikely to me -
Of the candidates left, Clinton is the safest vote. She knows the political ropes and she lives with one of the best presidents of the past 40 years. The world stage won't be too big for her, she's been doin it forever.
Although I love bernie sanders' idealism, it's just not realistic in today's washington, all the ? he talkin will get voted down or fillabustered and pettifogged to no end. We see what happened with Obama, and he wasn't even specifically fighting for us. Bernie comin in like he just got his first black ? , them white boys on capitol hill ain't goin for that lol.
I'm curious what changes you believe Hilary will bring. Are you saying that not trying is better than trying?
? what changed is anybody gonna bring? The calvary ain't comin, the president don't have that kind of power. The money holds the power, the money sways the votes of the congressmen, and senators. I don't want to sound like that guy, but I know we bein kept from the main table by design. We gotta go get it on our own, ain't nobody givin us ? . You ? think ya'll castin votes for change is gon work ya'll lost in the sauce.
They ain't changed a federal gun law yet. They shot up 20 white babies in a school. Ya'll think they give a ? about us? -
Unfortunately, this is true. I can't say I "like" him but I think he has good ideas. And Hillary Clinton isn't exactly likeable. But, Bernie Sanders is waaaayyy to liberal to win the election. This is going to be a "hold your nose" vote for anyone with a brain, and people who don't really like trump, but aren't liberal will be a lot less likely to get behind Bernie Sanders.
-
EmM HoLLa. wrote: »BOSSExcellence wrote: »EmM HoLLa. wrote: »Hilary ran the white house for 8 years and we were prosperous.. Never mind the rhetoric.. I'm going with Hilary..
yeh.. them bank deregulations were godsend. hahaha
before that ? couldn't even get a house.. never mind they couldn't afford them anyway..
and them 3 strike laws?? manna don't even get me started! lol
3 Strikes was Clinton?.. I thought that was Bush?..
I aint gonna sit up here and act like I know politics.. All I know is that during the time Clinton was in office.. ? wasn't as ? up as it is right now..
yeh.. that was him. lol
i aint into politics as i use to be either.. but Clinton benefited from his predecessor's policy's and inaction ? it up for his successor.. i.e. bin laden and the housing crash..
but u aint hear that from me tho. lol
