Go Bernie! We are still the best Americans ever!

A bit presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

The all out attack of the D party by this group is starting sooner than I thought it would

When he addresses the F-35 housed in VT that now have nuclear capabilities, though are not currently armed then I will listen to what he has to say.

I guess the award for Most Pure goes to people who opposed both wars.

As if it has anything to do with the topic, which is who has the best chance to win the next election.

Lone opponent of Afghanistan war feels vindicated

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) was the lone 'no' vote in Congress against the war in Afghanistan in 2001, voting against an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

At the time, she came under attack for being unpatriotic, even receiving death threats. Today, she feels vindicated.

"When I voted 'no,' I said it was a blank check and would set the stage for perpetual war, and that's what it's done," she said in a recent interview with The Hill. "I think members now understand it was a blank check. No way should we give any president authority to wage a war forever."

The 2001 AUMF has been used more than 30 times to take military action in places including Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen and Iraq, as well as several African nations. The same legislation is also used as justification for detaining individuals at Guantanamo Bay, according to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/227975-lone-opponent-of-afghan-war-feels-vindicated

Rewrite history much?

Best Americans ever? I give that award to the greatest generation for fighting back the nazis and giving us FDR and social programs. Let me know when bs can back up his talk with real accomplishments in that area.

Is because it was Democrats that came up with the New Deal and ever since then they have been trying to cut the New Deal. One reason why I support Bernie Sanders is he will take us back to that Keynesian economic era of high taxes on the rich and social spending on people who need it.

I was also against the Iraq war & also served in it. I thank Bernie Sanders for working out a deal with John McCain to prevent the conservatives from privatizing the VA.

and redistribution politics has a poor track record. It will not solve our problems with either economic inequality or social inequality.

Tax cuts are better drivers of growth than government programs. JFK and Bill Clinton realized that basic fact which is why both cut tax rates when they were in office. Revenues for the IRS increased and millions of jobs were created. The tax cuts actually lead to balanced budgets under Clinton because more people were working and less people relied on government benefits. Having a budget that is balanced or near-balanced also provides an additional economic tool when recessionary factors develop.

Higher tax rates also make the US economy less competitive with foreign economies and they provide incentives for corporate America and the billionaires to move their assets out of the country. Why would any corporation choose to repatriate their assets back to the USA if they know that they are going to face a large tax bill in the process? What is the incentive to work or to produce if the profit goes to the government?

I approve of social spending for the people that need it, but the best solution to lift people up is for them to work if they are capable of doing so rather than rely on government programs . It not only leads to better financial circumstances, but it also provides a sense of purpose and fulfillment when people contribute to society rather than becoming a burden on society.

Keynesian economics have worked well. Trickle down & neoliberal economics have lead to more inequality. Wages have stagnated since the 70s while the rich have gotten richer. Not to mention all the recessions.

I took economics so I don't fall for right wing economic scare tactics. One of my favorite economists is Naomi Klein who endorses Bernie Sanders.

If you like her that's fine. However, her opinions don't sway me very much. I'm also not swayed very much by the economists who live in the ivory towers of academia and their pontificating since they are largely out of touch with the working class. Good old common sense goes a long way for me.

On the one hand, opposition to enacting policies that will reduce economic polarization (as measured for instance by the Gini coefficient), and on the other, a package of very basic social guarantees building on the New Deal and Great Society vision.

I do not want the Democratic Party to be economically to the right of the German conservatives or Richard Nixon.

Yes. Indeed tax cuts can work when appropriate. But, in the USA since the Reagan era they've become fetishsized. To the point where we tax somewhere between 12 and 14% of GDP and continue to spend at 21 to 23% of GDP and put the rest on the card and burden future generations with the debt burden ala the T tax cuts.

Time to grow up, learn to do the research, read other opinions and come to your conclusions not from Fox or right wing think tanks but from study, observation and comparisons of other countries as well.

And if you accept that the minimum wage can remain static for a decade or longer you are too far gone down the rabbit hole to turn back. Just move on to the "road to sefdom" which the right wing acolytes advocate in word and deed.

It's always is enlightening to have a condescending newcomer insult me.

However, since you did engage me in discussion, perhaps you can provide cogent responses to the two questions I asked in my post?

1) Why would any corporation choose to repatriate their assets back to the USA if they know that they are going to face a large tax bill in the process?

2) What is the incentive to work or to produce if the profit goes to the government?

Get back with me when you arrive with some answers.

1. Let them keep writing tax code the way they have through their bought and sold lackeys in Congress for the past 40 years with the evisceration of total tax receipts from corporations from nearly 35% in the 50's to somewhere south of 9% today and you won't even have to ask the question. More privatize the profits and socialize the losses dispensation the country has been living under for the past 40 years. And then clamp down on all the off shore tax havens from Bermuda to Ireland to the Caymans or Luxembourg. That means closing ranks with other developed nations in eliminating tax loopholes.

2. "Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society." Justice O. W. Holmes got it right well over a century ago and it still holds true today. And as FDR annotated in 1937, "Too many individuals, however, want the civilization at a discount."

Your other choice as many of your fellow travelers in GOP circles really desire is Somalia brought the USA.
For only in the chaos of guns, insurrections and civil strife can they rape, pillage and plunder government coffers with impunity. Oh, sorry, they've been doing that for the past 40 years with Cheney and company.

co·gent
/ˈkōjənt/
adjective
(of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.

1) No, you didn't answer why corporations would repatriate assets to the US (or take their assets elsewhere). The US alone is not going to clamp down on tax havens and we have seen the EU fail in that regard also. The tax havens still exist (including US territories such as Puerto Rico). You fail to understand that the billionaires and corporations can easily pick up the ball and go elsewhere because we will never have the global cooperation to achieve what you idealize. Bermuda, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands, Ireland and other tax havens will be quite happy to have the influx of assets so we will never see them cooperate and disrupt their economies.

2) Again, a non-answer. You may want to give what you earn to the government, but that attitude prevails primarily in communes instead of the general population. Interesting enough, I've been hit up by commune members asking me for donations and I (like many of the others the commune members approached) told them to "get a job." Even within some co-ops that I observed in college, there was turmoil and ultimately failure as the individuals willing to put in the work became fed up with those who didn't pull their share of the weight. The whole idea of "community" even managed to fail in a small household of four during one summer (three months) when I was in college and I will say that two of the other roommates were extremely liberal. The three of us literally counted the days until we could remove ourselves from that awful situation--all of us felt screwed and so did the person (another liberal idealist) that we sublet the home from.

It defies human nature for people to work or produce then sheepishly give away the fruits of their labor to a cause or to the government unless there is a compelling cause and as terrible as some of our problems are in society, people do not feel compelled to solve them. I believe that people are willing to make sacrifices to support common goals such as public education through high school and helping the elderly, but there is far less agreement to go to those lengths for the working age population--I know because I limped along the streets as a homeless person not too long ago. While I believe that people are capable of being benevolent even the most altruistic believe in keeping what they have earned.

Finally, claiming that I travel in GOP circles is a bunch of BS and a personal attack, but I didn't expect any better of you. I wouldn't have lasted here for over 8 years and 72,000 posts if I was traveling in GOP circles. Keep up with your moral indignation though since I find it amusing even it is insulting.

Regards,

TxT

That’s my issue with Bernie and his followers is the naive notion he will get anything done to that level that fast. It’s so much more complicated than that. It’s just not realistic to have instant changes in those things as mush as we want them

None of that will even matter if trump isn’t defeated anyway.

I trust Bernie Sanders to handle these negotiations the same way he handled the McCain negotiations when Republicans wanted to privatize the VA. What I don't expect is him to give Republicans over half of what they want in an interest to "get something done" like when Bernie Sanders had that filibuster when several months of unemployment insurance were tied with tax cuts for the rich.

For example if he doesn't get medicare for all I expect him to improve & protect Obamacare.

Which isn’t to say that others lack those things. Sanders supports making health care a right not conditioned on payment for services rendered. Others don’t agree. It makes sense to me that all parties would share their perspectives on those issues and the voters can decide. Not everyone is going to agree with making comprehensive health care a social guarantee. I do, and care what candidates’ positions on that issue are, among others.

Certain folks, certain politicians do NOT want a D in the WH and will eventually help rump putin if necessary to defeat us.

It boggles the mind it's not more obvious to folks.

Thank you, Goth

by DT. I think that means staying away from any if our most progressive candidates. AFAICT, the ones who fall into the middle category are Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, & Klobuchar

That is the closest thing to a push poll by a non-campaign pollster that I've ever seen.

A more honest question would have been:

"After the media has crafted an inevitability narrative, while maintaining a horse race framing to keep ratings high, which candidate has the media told you has the best chance at beating Trump?"

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. This isn't even in the ballpark.

REALLY?

If a young voter believes a candidate merely offers "normalcy" and "business as usual", then they may stay home, as more than 77,000 did in the Rust Belt in 2016.

We can bemoan the lack of logic, Poor judgement, etc. displayed by those who would stay home, but a more pragmatic approach would be to ask "what would it take to dramatically increase voter turnout?", especially among young voters. If we can inspire massive turnout, we will win.

If our nominee can satisfactorily answer young voters' question "how will your administration benefit me and the people I care about?", they will be more likely to show up at the polls.

I get tired of people brushing off young voters saying "they never turn out"; that's un pragmatic defeatism, IMO.

IMO, Warren is one of those candidates who would inspire such massive turnout, it would make the 2018 blue wave look like a puddle.

FOR THEM

To me, that is the REAL "electability" question- which candidate is likely to inspire the
largest turnout of voters?

.... as long as that answer is Joe Biden.

plus an ability to convey empathy, has the best chance to draw the most stark contrast to Trump and to beat him,

Without any doubt, he is the best candidate and the one that can beat Impeached President Trump.

if she can get the nomination would have wide appeal and could get the independent vote, IMO.

this election. And it's not just that she's from the midwest and speaks to those values, she is a
former prosecutor so the standard repuke attack "soft on crime" won't work. But it's an all white ticket and we need diversity. Perhaps Joe's positive cred in the AA community will serve us all well and Obama just might campaign for him. With that, Trump can just hang it up and say good night...he'll get that slender swath of dedicated haters/mysoginists and racists all right but not the persuadable middle that we lost in 2016.

stopping fascist killers, but I want a woman.

Cory is a strong man from a tough neighborhood. Trump is a big bully, but it would be no contest. He'd knock that orange blob to the ground in no time.

Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete could kick his ass too, in a heartbeat. Hell, I bet any of the Dem candidates could punch out that whiny little bitch. All bullies at their core are sniveling cowards.

It’s not even close.

The #1 answer would be Hillary Clinton.

...the polls, IT'S BERNIE

Forget the polls and go Bernie..

Forget climatologists and go Trump..

Polls are a measurable indicator. I’ll always go with that over peoples “gut” feeling.

We are messed up.

For the last 7 months running Joe Biden has polled best in each of those states in match-ups vs Trump, so... Biden.

... an accurate and reasonable poll, I think. My personal opinion is different, though. My biggest difference of opinion is with Sanders. I think a "socialist" campaign against him would be successful - and he would have less chance of shedding the label than Warren. here's my order:

1. Buttigieg
2. Bloomberg
3. Klobuchar
4. Biden
5. Warren
6. Yang
7. Sanders
8. Gabbard

in going after Trump during the primaries. I've been undecided since Harris fell from grace but I'm starting to lean towards Biden. Warren's constant attacks on fellow Democrats for engaging in legal and open fundraising has really turned me off. I had Warren above Biden in my personal preference list for most of the year, but no more. I think her campaign has lost its way.

primaries!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet