SlackerInc, you have received three separate notices to turn off the “Drumpf” app when quoting other posters.
You have refused to turn it off.
This is a Warning that you are not permitted to continue using software that changes other posters’ quotes.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m already pissed at Republicans for making me put up with Trump. If Democrats nominate Sanders when they have a reasonable candidate in Clinton then fuck them, I’m voting Trump.
That’s very logical.
It’s logical. Trump is a buffoon, Sanders is an ideologue. Either of them will be bad presidents IMO. In Trump’s favor (in a way) is that he’ll get almost nothing done; Republicans won’t work with him and neither will Democrats. Sanders might actually get a few things passed; if he shuts down even one nuclear power plant he’ll do more long-term damage than Trump could.
Both would be disasters for the economy if they could get their ideas realized. Trump has almost no chance; Sanders just a bit more.
Trump will hurt the prestige of the presidency and likely piss off foreign governments but we’ll recover. (Although, I do have to admit that a Putin/Trump summit would be an interesting train wreck if they don’t end up racing to push the button first.) To his credit Sanders appears to be the most pro-Palestinian candidate; foreign policy is the one area I give Sanders the edge.
Lastly, although Trump is a buffoon he is the most moderate of the viable candidates (granted, this is partly because he doesn’t appear to have a coherent platform). Sanders is the liberal version of the Tea Party. If Trump were to trounce Sanders one possible positive outcome is that the extremists on both sides will given less sway in future primaries.
My only hope is that Clinton survives. The best-case scenario for me is that Clinton wins the presidency but the Republicans have a slight majority in the legislature.
I don’t know and frankly don’t care if he was on welfare, but his own admission he never really got his first steady paycheck until he was almost 40 and and worked a bunch of odd and low-paying jobs and at times did receive unemployment insurance, which I wouldn’t view as welfare, but many might. It’s never been documented that he was on welfare, but he was almost always poor until roughly age 40 and so I wouldn’t be surprised or begrudge him for being on public assistance, particularly when he and his wife had small children.
I’ve seen several conservative hit him on the idea that he was a “welfare bum”(a term I hate and never use) who “never held a real job till he was almost 40”.
Here’s a Snopes article on the subject. Bernie Sanders: A Loser's Life? | Snopes.com
I agree, except for the last bit. I’ll be voting third-party if the Democrats nominate Sanders.
I’m one of those Republicans who happily voted for Obama twice, because of the current direction of the party. But if the Democrats run a leftist, they can expect to lose the center.
Drumpf is a racist, I’d never vote for him.
Yes its a simple statement
He really isn’t. I’m guessing that his policies are milder than that of Scandinavian. And Scandinavia does fine.
Democratic socialism is the norm among advanced countries.Tea Party ideology, on the other hand, is extreme and untested.
Except Sanders is not a true democratic socialist. He’s only a Democratic Socialist so as to appear more moderate for the primary electorate that he is seeking votes from. Mr Sanders has been a socialist caucusing with the Democratic caucus for the entirety of his political career. I don’t buy his “Democratic Socialist” change of heart now that he’s running for POTUS
Thanks, very interesting. I wouldn’t begrudge him any of it, either–in case that’s not obvious by my username. But I’m also a pragmatist when it comes to politics, and if he were the nominee, we’d see a heavy focus from the media on his background and stuff like this would not reflect well on him with the “Protestant work ethic” crowd IMO:
Again, I am not endorsing the viewpoint of that “work ethic” crowd whatsoever–they (including my in-laws) have never thought much of me, and the feeling’s mutual–but that helps inform my sense that there are a **lot **of people out there (and not just conservatives by any stretch of the imagination) who really look down on this kind of lifestyle.
ETA: This actually could be more problematic than all Bernie’s associations in that period (and continuing into his 40s) with very radical politics like the Sandinistas. That stuff is “ancient history”, as his supporters like to point out: “a relic of the Cold War”. I think it still has relevance for a lot of people, but it’s an arguable point. Living the lifestyle described above on into middle age (as opposed to a few forgivable years in your twenties) is something any “Middle American” can relate to, and look down upon. It’s relatable, right up to the present day.
His policies are also milder than Greece and Italy; they are not doing so fine. If we’re going to use EU countries as a comparison we should use all of them. Otherwise we can note that Alaska was leading the country in GDP per capita while Palin was the governor.
I disagree. What the Tea Party wants is largely a roll-back of taxes and regulations to levels we haven’t seen in a while. We can disagree with their message but they want nothing new.