Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Post Reply New Topic

Some of those scandals are real, some manufactured. HRC isn't the first politician to have transparency issues. You may not think it's close, but the entire Democratic Party establishment is on the other side and, for the record, HRC is still hugely popular among the party base and reasonably well liked nationally. She is almost certain to win the Democratic nomination and has a solid chance in the general election, depending on who the GOP nominates.

Charles Rangel or Anthony Weiner.

Bernie f*****g Sanders all the way!

I've heard Bernie for years on the Thom Hartman radio and TV show. He is the only politician I've seen who takes all callers except for the drunk and people swearing. They can't get past the screeners for obvious reasons. But Bernie will take questions and comments from all stripes. He can do this because he says what he believes and means what he says. He's held these positions all his life so doesn't need to lie. It's refreshing and he's on the people's side on every issue... You may not always agree with what he says, but he wants the best for us and our country.

I'm likely not voting dem (at worst I'm not voting) but I'd choose Sanders for democratic candidate just because I think the public needs to learn some things about itself, it's anglings, and we need a properly caustic dichotomy to get a national debate that's purgative enough to be meaningful. Without that we get lulled to sleep by a pair of squishy neo-libs standing together on stage pretending to be from opposing camps, one wins (no difference who - they're interchangeable), and the country stays in a coma for another eight years while the national debt pushes up to 25 or 30 trillion with no noticeable improvement in any area of operation.

What's perverted about caring for the needy? Especially when many of those needy are children, or are idsabled.
And by the way, quite a few of those "non-earners" were working people left destitute by capitalism, which promises to make everyone rich, while cutting wages and benefits, and even outsourcing and cutting jobs. And that's all the while Carly what's-her'name, like other CEO failures like her, drove her company into the ground, yet got a golden parachute when fired. She didn't give any of the thousands of workers she fired any sort of parachute when she proverbially tossed them from the plane.

Well, the only Democrats that I "know" on the list are Hillary, Biden, and O'Malley----I believe Hillary to be a big, fat liar; O'Malley's full of crapola----but, I love, Love, LOVE Joe Biden!!

I checked "Not voting Democrat". Let's put it this way..... If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and the GOP nominee is someone who burned-down an orphanage, on Christmas Eve, I'd vote for the GOP nominee----I'd find SOME reason to justify what he did----just so I wouldn't have to vote for Hillary!!

(The orphanage thing was just a figure of speech----I would NOT truly condone such behavior!!)

Are any of these candidates military veterans?

Hillary Clinton has counter-sniper experience from Bosnia.

Bernie Sanders idea of "caring for the needy" is to put his foot on your throat and demand money from you.

It's morally wrong.

And you are wrong, his "concern for needy people" is a smokescreen. Like most socialists he gets downright nasty if a company moves jobs to poorer countries that would greatly help the very poor there. He doesn't give a hoot about the very poor.


Capitalism doesn't make promises.

Yes, plenty of capitalists have claimed their system would make us all rich. And if it doesn't promise anything, hen what good is it? Are the poor supposed to just die happily because capitalism makes no promise to lift them up? Now that's morally bankrupt.
And if "putting a foot on your throat" means taxes - well, it's no such thing. Taxes make the world go around; and that includes helping people in need. If caring for the needy was entirely voluntary, how many capitalists on the right would really care to help, being that they advocate such a heartless system?
As for Bernie Sanders caring for the poor only in this country - well, of course, as Americans are his constituents. And since when have capitalists ever cared for the needy? They have only promoted social Darwinism.

Taxation is the price for living in a civilized society. If you don't like it, get off our tax-funded roads and off our government-developed internet. You can be purely self-sufficient as a hermit in the wilderness, but being part of civilization means playing by its rules.


Sanders isn't a socialist by a long shot. At most he might be a Scandinavian-style social democrat.


Then why worship it?

Are you saying that throughout history whenever a country did not have certain amount of taxes, then the people lived uncivilized?

When exactly did the people of the United States become civilized ? Was it before the federal income tax or after ? After right? So everyone in the 1800s were uncivilized fools who did not realize their pitiful state of not having government workers think and do for them ?

I see it as:
Taxes are the price you pay for employing lazy, do-nothing government workers.
Taxes are the price you pay for wasteful government spending.
Taxes are the price you pay for participating in wars you want no part of.
Taxes are the price you pay for corporate welfare.
Taxes are the price you pay ... etc ... etc



He still presents the same hypocrisy of "true socialists".

They say they want to help the poor, but get angry when a business moves to a third world nation and helps the very, very poor. Not those poor! Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Selfishly cries the Scandinavian-style social democrat/Socialist.

When a Socialist says "let's help the poor", that is code words for "let's help ourselves".



I don't.

Capitalism is nothing special to me. However, Capitalism recognizes that humans are greedy creatures, and is a system that punishes/rewards that. Socialism does not. Thus, in the long run, Socialism is doomed to fail for that reason. It tries to fight against human nature.

Though I'm not so partisan as to say I'll never vote democrat (I have for some of the more local offices) , my vote is Not voting Democrat.

I never said anything about specific levels of taxation. You're the one spouting rhetoric about taxation inherently being morally wrong, which would necessarily imply it being wrong at any level. You're either an anarchist or a hypocrite, and in either case a hypocrite since you're happy to use government-provided services while still selfishly bitching about how you don't want to chip in for the cost of them like everyone else.


Government employees do a lot of valuable and necessary work.
Government waste is far less than you likely believe. Many government programs are run with shockingly low levels of waste and administrative overhead - far less than you would see anywhere in the private sector.
Ok, I'm not fond of our foreign policy. But I'm not a complete pacifist either and there are reasons for us to maintain a strong military. That can't be realistically provided by the private sector.
Corporate welfare is a mixed bag. Sometimes it's subsidizing an industry that provides a social good but has extensive startup/R&D costs that the short-sighted private sector can't get past. Sometimes it's just influential lobbyists funneling money to their cronies.


You seem to have very little idea what is meant by socialism. No one in America is proposing nationalizing all the banks, farms, and heavy industry, for starters. No one in Norway is either, to my knowledge.


Uh huh. The thing is, capitalism where the government funds a social safety net, provides public goods (roads, schools, armies), and uses taxes and subsidies to correct for market externalities (eg by penalizing coal mines for the environmental cost) is still capitalism. People do still have incentives to look for their own interest, and the free market is still responsible for allocating resources.

Capitalists will argue that Capitalism produces the highest standard of living for the most people. Socialism would be the better system, however, it cannot overcome human greed.


Yes. Happy, and rich ideally.


So, you think "Robbing Hood" Sanders is moral? Why not drop the pretense, and just break into people's homes, and take their stuff? Morally that is what "Robbing Hood" Sanders advocates.


Capitalism is heartless.

However, you falsely belief that left wing/Socialist policies/progressive economic policies do good. When in fact they are foolish and destructive. Your fight is against human greed, and you can't win.


Right. They likely don't.