...I keep reading that world opinion would prefer Trump over Clinton because they perceive him as far less likely to take the U.S. to unnecessary war. They see Trump as being full of bombast and bluster but see Clinton as a serious threat to world peace.

I believe you think Bernie is so dishonest because he is pointing out how Hillary is so bought off that we will have no voice in a Hillary administration. You don't believe that these corporations are giving and paying her so much money for a quid pro quo. They just give her hundreds of millions because she will be so tough on them and good for the 99%?

Talk about reality check!

I guess because they dislike her that much they had to vote for her?

Gosh, those pesky facts....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

Take some time to digest this, k?

Or maybe Gallup is corrupt, too?

The MSM is propaganda like never seen before. We have a terrible problem with money in politics and the corruption that ensues. Hillary has taken in more money than anyone, both in her campaign, Super PACs, the Clinton Foundation, and personally from these power brokers that really run this country. They decided she should be the U.S. CEO. If you believe that it has no influence on her, well I cannot help you or even understand you. Best wishes!

I go all the way back to McGovern in '72.

I've ALWAYS voted Democratic.

As opposed to George Washington or James Monroe?

James Monroe received every electoral vote but one in the 1820 election. A New Hampshire delegate wanted George Washington to be the only president elected unanimously.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]How about since 1820?

But since it said all-time, there was no statute since all time means in all of recorded history

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]FDR and Bernie have the same enemies and much the same devotion from supporters.

Of course he is!

I don't like Oprah

Though my grandparents really loved FDR too. Two Great Democrats.

But it's a joke.

To think that, a person can't have been old enough to have seen the celebration when President Obama was elected -- much less other beloved Dems.

I voted for Obama and he did some really good things socially, but sold us out in the end to corporate interests. That's the thing with corporate Democrats, they sell us on the social policies and still vote with Republicans to protect Wall Street, MIC, Big Pharma, insurance companies, and oil companies! Oh, and don't forget the NSA spying on us! Hillary will do all that and more. I also see a lot more wars and obstruction in our future should she win.

There will be no real campaign finance reform and inequality will grow. She will put out some solar panels and call it a day for climate change. This is if she can even beat the Republican, whoever he is. This is getting too depressing!

but Bernie does not surpass either of them, either.

I was in Los Angeles the night RFK was shot and killed in L.A. in 1968, just after he'd won the California primary (and was on his way to becoming president). I've mourned them both all my life.

Neither man was as good as Bernie Sanders is, on policy--both domestic and foreign. Neither man was as clean as Sanders is, on campaign contributions (though money was not as big an issue then as it is today). Neither man was as consistent as Sanders has been, throughout his political career, as to fighting for social justice and civil rights, and opposing unjust war.

I admired JFK and RFK, especially with regard to their change of heart about the "cold war" and U.S. use of nuclear weapons during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis--a change that required tremendous courage (the two of them stood alone on it)--and RFK's change on the Vietnam War after his brother was killed. Both would have been FAR, FAR better presidents than the ones we ended up with (JFK in the 2nd term that he was denied, and RFK in the presidency he was denied**).

But they just didn't come up to Sanders' standards overall. Sanders is far and away the best candidate for president that we have ever had, in my lifetime.

-----------------------

Do read: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.

after he won the California primary. He was murdered that night. I was absolutely devoted to those candidacies. How can you say they "didn't appeal" to me? That is a meaningless statement anyway. "Appeal" is just P.R. and telegenic qualities. What does the candidate STAND FOR? And what are his creds in standing for it?

I was only 16 when I volunteered for JFK for his one and only presidential campaign. I didn't have much understanding of the issues. But I did trust his judgement--and I was so right about that. He and RFK stood alone against what would have been a nuclear holocaust and the end of life on earth in 1962!

I did NOT understand this at the time. But their "appeal" for me had SUBSTANCE. I was so right about them but I didn't really know why.

I was beginning to have a more sophisticated understanding of politics and candidates by 1968. The Vietnam War did it. When RFK turned against the war and began to lead an anti-Vietnam War campaign, and also when he embraced civil rights and social justice, he had EARNED my support.

But Bernie Sanders has never had to struggle to advocate the correct policies. He's been consistent all of his life--from chaining himself to a black woman and getting arrested with her in a protest against segregation and leading the Congress of Racial Equality in Chicago, to his principled stances on the Iraq War, on running a presidential campaign with NO CORPORATE MONEY, and so much more, he did not have to LEARN to be a true progressive, as both JFK and RFK did. His instincts have ALWAYS been against militarism and for the poor majority.

This is what I mean by Sanders being better than both JFK and RFK. They were both "cold warriors" to start off with. They were both from money and privilege to start off with. They were Democrats, which meant something in those days, but they were not that passionately committed to social justice and civil rights AT FIRST. They became more progressive (genuinely so) as their political careers matured. You would have laughed at the first JFK vs Nixon debate and the kind of stupid issues it was about, with JFK being not only stupid but wrong. The big issue was "the missile gap." There actually wasn't any "missile gap" (with Russia) but JFK said there was, and everybody said he "won" the debate because of that.

You won't find Bernie Sanders taking such a stupid militaristic and wrong position!

Of course, JFK LATER defied the entire "military-industrial complex" which wanted to nuke Russia and Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK had grown that much in a short time. But if you're talking about JFK the candidate in 1960, there is no comparison to Sanders. And RFK voted FOR the Vietnam War!!! (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution!). He turned against it LATER--post JFK assassination, post half the slaughter (about 1 million dead at that point).

Do you understand what I'm saying? Sanders STARTS OFF with the right instincts on every issue, and has always done so!

But they did to millions of others. Just because you revere Bernie doesn't make him a Saint or you correct. You have your opinion about him, which is shared by many, and I have mine -- which is also shared by many.

You think Bernie has advocated the correct policies all his life? Well, I think that voting against the Brady bill to get elected in Vermont was a very bad choice, but as a politician in Vermont, I understand why he made it.

Same with his choice to vote for the PLCAA, which overturned gun liability laws in all 50 states. That's not the position of a consistent progressive. It just makes him a typical politician -- and much closer to the Rethugs on this issue.

He also voted with the Rethugs against the national health care plan that Bill Clinton tried to get passed. Why? Because Bernie preferred his own single payer plan, which had zero chance of passing. I think that was a poor choice for him to make.

I disagree strongly that he has the right instincts on EVERY issue. OTOH, you seem not to be aware that he and Hillary, while in the Senate, did vote together 93% of the time. Compared to the Rethugs, both of them were far to the left.

You can see both of their voting records here.

ontheissues.org

Though I spend most of my working day with 18-22-year olds.

But I can see that you just don't get it--why people love Bernie so much.

Bernie is a genuinely good person. That is his essence: caring for other people. His running for the presidency is a rare opportunity for us to introduce native goodness to our system, a system that seems designed to elevate those who demonstrate a high degree of sociopathy to the top.


Cher

offering intellectually dishonest proposals.

I'm sorry--really sorry--that you can't recognize genuine goodness when it's presented to you.

We are all products of our background. The fact that you can't relate to this makes me feel sorry for you. But that's your life journey. Eventually you will work your way out of it. I hope, anyway. I realize that sounds condescending. I'm sorry I can't think of a way to put it better. My fault as a writer.

There is nothing whatsoever in Bernie's background that says he's a phony. He's a person who believes in working with the system to make change. It hasn't been easy for him: he can't really buy into either the Republican or Democratic establishment. The closest he can come is left-wing progressive in the Democratic party.

I love the fact that he defies labels.

Anyone who has been around as long as he has is bound to be burdened with baggage. But he's not. There's nothing.

That's why so many people love him.



Cher

For one thing, to make his proposals work, he posits a 5% annual growth rate for years.

We mock Rethugs for their fantastic, impossible trickle-down economics, and then he comes up with numbers just as ridiculous.

Maybe he's not a phony. Maybe he's just so convinced he's deluding himself. Neither quality would make a good President.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/02/18/the_sanders_campaign_is_living_in_an_economic_fantasy_world.html

None of this is sitting well with the Democratic Party's policy establishment. The letter criticizing Friedman's analysis was written by Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, all former leaders of the Council of Economic Advisers under Presidents Obama and Clinton. “As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes,” it states. “Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.” In the world of liberal econ, this is a bit like the Vatican ringing up a small church to chew it out for celebrating Mass wrong.

Other writers and economists have piled on, too. At the New York Times, Paul Krugman said Sanders' embrace of 5 percent growth shows his campaign was just “not ready for prime time.” Brad DeLong at the University of California–Berkeley, wrote a post titled: “We Need to Hold the Line on Analytical Standards Here” (that counts as impassioned, I swear). Mother Jones' Kevin Drum declared in a headline that the “Sanders Campaign Has Crossed Into Neverland.”

that might make sense.

Even though it's fairly unsaid, that BS is headed south.

Times are changing. The world is tired of us (meaning U.S.). There are even threads about this right here at DU. Today. The days of the American empire are ending. Climate change, if we don't arrest it, will consume all of our productivity and $$.

Have you ever really acquainted yourself with the military budget and how much of our tax dollars it consumes? Go ahead: Google image yourself silly with bar charts comparing our military budget with that of the rest of the world's. There is so much money to spend on our own human resources that your points are a non-issue.

And don't even get me started on the trillions unaccounted for by the Pentagon.

Also, you might be interested to know that some of the supporters you cite have revised and renounced their projections. Get current.

So the bottom line of what I'm telling you is that once we quit running the world and killing our fellow humans, we'll have plenty of money to invest in our own people. After all, what is a nation but its people?

Everyone is sick of this. It's time for you to come to your senses and jump on board.


Cher

as it sounds like you have swilled too much Chamber of Commerce kool-aid.
Perhaps a pnw local brew could neutralize that CC acid.

Seems to me that 'The Council of Economic Advisers' didn't do such a good job for this country.
Do you wonder whether maybe those 'respected' advisers benefit personally by their statements?
Or accept them as 'holy writ'?

The right side of the political spectrum says, "Status Quo".

The left side, "It's not working. Let's find a way to change it".

Do you not wish for some changes?

predict it for their programs, or Bernie does it for his.

It isn't a question of wishing for changes. It's a question of how to realistically achieve positive changes. And I don't believe in magic wands or magic podium birds.

I ditched my St Bernie sig line far too early.

I did not see this coming.

It is obvious that he is the reincarnation of St Francis of Assisi; the bird proved that.

YER KILLING ME

No

1. Bernie

2. Shirley Chisholm

3. FDR

RFK, Adlai Stevenson

buttons and the rock star quality of JFK and then RFK. Sanders doesn't come close.

Yes.