Nonsense. There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans holding office. The fact that some individuals in each of these parties lost elections didn’t make either party disappear.
Yes. I vote for the least worse.
That’s not prejudice, that’s just recognizing that the Standing In The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party, (Policies include: Asparagus for Breakfast, Corsets for Toddlers, and Abolition of Slavery), doesn’t deserve our serious consideration.
I will probably never vote again for any Republican for any office, but for the sake of argument:
I will never vote for an NRA member or anyone who talks of gun “rights”.
I will never vote for any anti-abortion candidate.
I will never vote for anyone who does not admit that the Iraq war was a colossal mistake.
I will never vote for anyone who denies global warming.
I will never vote for anyone who aligns himself with the Tea Party.
I will never vote for anyone who tells me we’re taxed too much.
I will never vote for anyone who opposed the ACA.
I will never vote for anyone currently opposed to gay marriage.
I am right there with ya, with one exception, the ACA. There are plenty of good and legitimate reasons for progressives to be against the ACA. I know it is the best we were able to get in the then current Republican-obstructionist climate but, objectively, it is bad law and a gift to the insurance industry, and is no where near as good as we could have gotten had Obama the balls to fight for the public option or, dare I say it, single-payer (yes, I know single-payer was not on the table at the time).
I can live with that. If you were for single payer and accepted the ACA as better than nothing, fine. It’s the nimrods that say that the ACA is socialism, getting between you and your doctor, death panels, and taking over the health care system that I’ve got a problem with.
No, but sometimes it can be one single issue that can break a candidate’s back.
A lot of people have been saying that Bernie Sanders is a strong contender for the (D) party. He was just on CNN 90 minutes ago talking about gun violence and gun control, so I turned up the volume to see how he’d address the issue.
Ignoring any POV, he seemed almost enraged and defensive in a way that was decidedly neither reasonable, well thought out, nor presidential.
I hope he gets his matching funds to settle his campaign debts… and I hope Vermont welcomes him back.
Is “crazy” a single issue? If so – yes, on occasion.
Sanders will be 76 when his current Senate term ends. He may have decided to retire anyway and this presidential campaign is his last hurrah.
Yes and no. If there were a race between someone who was good for education, but opposed everything else I stood for, versus someone who was bad for education, but otherwise agreed with me, I would vote for the education guy. However, it’s never come up, because the candidate who’s more pro-education almost always agrees with me on most other issues as well.
Which is why I’ve occasionally waved the flag for a plurality system. Being a minor party candidate or supporter should not mean effectively sitting out the process. Let’s face it, most minor-party candidates are NOT ones you really want running things - they tend to be single-issue, or very selective about what they think is important, and anything from state representative/senator on up has to be - HAS to be - an all-issues, big-picture role. The ones who think they can go in and work only one issue for four years prove to be ineffectual blockages in the process.
But as part of a working solution… there’s room for specialized viewpoints.
America will crumble if Sanders becomes president. He is a “Nordic Model” socialist. This system appears to be wonderful. “No unemployment, free health care, free education, etc.” It sounds good but, it is all just to good to be true. An analyst working for the UN predicted that Sweden will be a poor 3rd world country by 2030.
Here are some sources to read.
Edit:
Here is proof that Sanders supports the Nordic Model.
And two across the hallway predicted we’ll all be speaking Swedish by then. 
Let’s face it, you can find “an analyst” who’s predicted pretty much every economic outcome possible, at any and every time. Even if you limit that to professionals educated in economics and related fields.
Your insistence on several Precise Terms indicates, to me, how you view things.
Did you check out the links?
Also it wasn’t just one analyst it was a report.
"According to UN projections, Sweden will be a much poorer country by 2030, much worse than what anyone in the Swedish government indicates.
The UN report HDI (Human Development Index) predicts a significant decrease in Swedish prosperity, unlike their Nordic neighbors, who will retain their top positions and even strengthen them globally in the long run.
In 2010 Sweden had the 15th place in the HDI rankings but according to UN forecasts, Sweden will be #25 in 2015, and in 2030 on the 45th place."
Honestly though, I am no fan of the United Nations.
I’m not fan of Sanders. He’d be my number 5 among the major Democratic Candidates if both Webb and Biden get in. That said did you really read your links?
The issue you state with the Nordic model is only an issue in Sweden not the other Nordic countries with similar systems. Sweden has an issue with effectiveness of their schools. They have very liberal immigration policies (tending to bring swing their population more quickly towards less educated / skilled workers when they are already having issues with education. They also have higher numbers using their welfare programs compared to others with similar systems in the area. Those factors could present challenges regardless.
Saying the system isn’t sufficient to sustain Sweden’s current success in their situation is different than saying the model is completely without merit. At best it speaks to the system not being some kind of magic wand that always leads to social and economic success. Things are complicated. Who knew?
Oh well. Sweden lasted sixteen centuries. If it collapses in the next ten years, it had a good run.
I always vote to increase gridlock.
It’s not just Sweden though its the whole model. Denmark has THE highest taxes in the world. Socialist countries can also easily fake their unemployment level by many means, I can go further into how they do that.
Also only one link said only Sweden had a problem.
So? Taxes don’t matter; standard of living matters. I’m going to have to work some amount to be able to get the things I want, and others will get the money I earn from that work. Why does it matter to me whether that someone who gets the money is the government? I just care that I’m getting good value.