Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump in 2020

[mooray]

Because of his lifetime commitment and resolution, but yes he didn't want to run under dem either, but knew he would have to if he wanted a real shot and caved. And speaking of not having it both ways, you like liberalism and are also ageist? Interesting.

 

[rkymtnman]

some of me is liberal some of me is conservative.

and Barnie has one foot in the grave. that's not ageism, that's reality.

 

[mooray]

I agree. In fact, I agree so much so that I think we should have some sort of program where older people are "retired" and converted into some sort of food product that help feed the younger people that need it.

 

[Herb & Suds]

I agree. In fact, I agree so much so that I think we should have some sort of program where older people are "retired" and converted into some sort of food product that help feed the younger people that need it.

Why don't you just step off your flat earth , comrade?

 

[mooray]

Whatever, just keep sending ol' Wasserman-Schultz your tithe money so you can remain in good standing.

 

[rkymtnman]

I agree. In fact, I agree so much so that I think we should have some sort of program where older people are "retired" and converted into some sort of food product that help feed the younger people that need it.

i thought that's where Jack in the Box got their burger meat from.

 

[mooray]

There's a good joke in there somewhere. Something something, you'll know it later when you feel the Bern..?

Really though it was an old movie reference.

 

[captainmorgan]

Sanders' is anything but a con man. Con men don't hold the same values for 30+ years while trying to upset the status quo/establishment, even though it made him unpalatable for moderates. That is the polar opposite of a con man. Biden on the other hand is a slime ball that sets his sail whichever way the political wind blows.

It's pretty pathetic to see a bunch of phoneys rail against the only real progressive on the ticket willing to be honest about what it will take/cost to right the course for Americans. What a bunch of whiney whites worrying about having to pay for poor people (a large percentage being minorities) to have healthcare, a social safety net, and pay the true cost of your collective bigotry and corruption.

You'll be sorry in 20 years when you're still stuck with your establishment and their rich, male agenda. Look where running an establishment phoney last time got you.

Unions ARE THE ONLY REASON workers have any rights today. Corporations and the Republicans have been trying to bust unions since their inception, and it ain't because they're nice guys with your family's best interests in mind. The boards of directors couldn't care less if you eat out of a dumpster so they can have better numbers for their shareholders.

LOL

 

[UncleBuck]

Whatever, just keep sending ol' Wasserman-Schultz your tithe money so you can remain in good standing.

Gee, didn’t hear this same bullshit from russia in 2016

 

[mooray]

I'm going to trader joes today, what do you want a picture of?

 

[mooray]

Sitting in front of in and out, you want a pic or not?

 

[UncleBuck]

Sitting in front of in and out, you want a pic or not?

Post a pic of the boiler room in St. Petersburg you’re working in

 

[mooray]

Took a pic in front of In&Out, Costco gas station and Trader Joe's. Just holler if you want me to post, but I'm guessing you'd just say I pulled them from the web, so I'm not sure there's much point.

 

[Padawanbater2]

But it is just a narrative,.. very few employers throughout history will let the people under them suffer more than they are willing to themselves.

If it's "just a narrative", why did we need to enact labor laws?

I say you go too far with the laws are detrimental to the majority of America, and because of this it become a 'gut' feeling and no longer represents reality.

And I guess I really don't understand what you mean by 'crony capitalism'.

Employers steal billions from some of nation's most vulnerable workers

The Economic Policy Institute reported in 2014 that survey evidence suggests wage theft costs US workers billions of dollars a year. Some rights violated by wage theft have been guaranteed to workers in the United States in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class. This is often achieved by using state power rather than competition in managing permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other forms of state intervention over resources where the state exercises monopolist control over public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works. Money is then made not merely by making a profit in the market, but through profiteering by rent seeking using this monopoly or oligopoly. Entrepreneurship and innovative practices which seek to reward risk are stifled since the value-added is little by crony businesses, as hardly anything of significant value is created by them, with transactions taking the form of trading. Crony capitalism spills over into the government, the politics, and the media, when this nexus distorts the economy and affects society to an extent it corrupts public-serving economic, political, and social ideals.

I do not think that someone who is paid to come in and say sweep out cages at a local pet store as a summer job before college starts up should expect to earn as much as a person who has built up the business from scratch and has devoted their life to that business.

Do you think that person should earn a living wage if he/she works full time?

You didn't answer the previous question; Do you think it's reasonable that business owners and executives earn hundreds to thousands of times more than their average hourly employee?

I think it is disingenuous though to look at the lowest wage person at a company and compare them to the highest paid.

Nobody would care what the highest paid employee earned if the lowest paid employee earned a living wage for full time work and did not need to rely on the government to make up the difference

I don't know what you are talking about here, being a broken clock is more about spamming shit nonstop and eventually what is being said happens.

In your opinion, during Sanders political career spanning back to Burlington, what vote(s) has he cast that you believe are wrong?

Can you cite one?

That all sounds great, but it is easy to support things that are in favor of humanity, it is harder to get legislation passed that is going to affect peoples lives. Sanders is a great voice in the Senate, that doesn't mean he would be as effective as POTUS.

So cite a vote that he cast where you believe he was wrong on the issue. If you can't cite even a single vote, how can you levy the criticism that he didn't get anything passed when in your own opinion, he voted correctly? Why would it be Sanders' fault a resolution didn't get passed if he voted for it? Why would it be his fault if a resolution did get passed he opposed and voted against? Sanders voted against the war in Iraq, nearly everyone else supported it. Sanders was right, why would you view that as a valid criticism against him because the wrong resolution he opposed passed? That does not make sense.

But I do not think I was wrong about the voter thing, but sure I apologize. Bernie did not support Clinton when he was obviously not going to become the nominee and his pride? helped the Russians to run their disinformation campaign on Clinton far longer than it should have, turning a lot of Bernie voters to hem and haw over voting for her which was enough to slip those 70,000 voters in key states that got Trump elected.

Your stat says nothing about how many Bernie voters then voted for Clinton/3rd party, nor Clinton voters who voted for Obama/3rd party

Where is the evidence that shows that Sanders staying in the race resulted in 70K voters supporting Trump? That's complete nonsense

Without Sanders voters voting for Clinton, she would not have won the popular vote

I didn't see anything in that article saying democracy is threatened. And of course rich people have more influence than average voters who mostly never even lay eyes on a politician. They are spending a lot of money to sit down and talk with their politicians.

That still doesn't mean that the politician 'owes' them anything other than what they promise in their campaign. Getting perspectives of how businesses survive from the people running those businesses is important. Businesses are not evil.

You don't understand how democracy is threatened if wealthy people have the ability to purchase political influence? What..?

You are reading into what I said, I do not believe I went as far as you claim I went. So I am curious why you would say that a politician is forced to do what a donor tells them to do?

I didn't say they're "forced" to do anything, they would simply lose the support, and along with it, the donation(s) of the wealthy person or organization that donated to them. Wealthy people don't donate to politician in the hopes that politician supports what they support. They donate to politicians with the expectation that they will support what they want them to if they want their financial support in the future. The study I linked in the previous post proves in upwards of 95% of federal elections, whichever candidate spends the most wins. A similar correlation can be drawn for state and local elections as well.

In America today, popular issues like universal background checks, federally legal recreational marijuana, Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, etc., ideas with overwhelming support from the American people across the political spectrum, don't get passed because organizations like the NRA, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and business leaders all oppose them and they all spend big when it comes to purchasing politicians because their return on that investment is paid back a hundredfold in decreased regulations, higher prescription drug prices, longer jail terms and prison sentences, and ever increasing profits for business owners, executives, and shareholders.

 

[UncleBuck]

Bernie sucks and his heart is shitty

 

[captainmorgan]

Is the old carny dead yet?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Is the old carny dead yet?

No. Trump lives on, tweeting his snake oil to his hopelessly stupid victims.

 

[hanimmal]

If it's "just a narrative", why did we need to enact labor laws?

Fair enough I was over generalizing. I should have added within the level of humanity of the civilization at the time.

I didn't say they're "forced" to do anything, they would simply lose the support, and along with it, the donation(s) of the wealthy person or organization that donated to them.

Maybe future donations, but they can't take back previous ones I wouldn't think.

They donate to politicians with the expectation that they will support what they want them to if they want their financial support in the future. The study I linked in the previous post proves in upwards of 95% of federal elections, whichever candidate spends the most wins. A similar correlation can be drawn for state and local elections as well.

It makes sense, also makes sense that if someone is running a business an industry they will have good ideas about what could be done to help them, businesses are not our enemies.

In America today, popular issues like universal background checks, federally legal recreational marijuana, Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, etc., ideas with overwhelming support from the American people across the political spectrum, don't get passed because organizations like the NRA, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and business leaders all oppose them and they all spend big when it comes to purchasing politicians because their return on that investment is paid back a hundredfold in decreased regulations, higher prescription drug prices, longer jail terms and prison sentences, and ever increasing profits for business owners, executives, and shareholders.

The Republicans have strangled any bill that is not aimed to help the Wealthy White Heterosexual Male agenda for decades. Progress is made, but the Russians pushed Trump up on the shoulders of the evangelicals and hate mongers to win the Republicans nomination and suppressed enough Democratic voters to push him over Clinton in 2016. Any of the Democrats brings instant improvement in all those important areas you listed day one.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Interesting new poll results today..

 

[captainmorgan]

No. Trump lives on, tweeting his snake oil to his hopelessly stupid victims.

I was referring to the other one, Sanders.