Would the left turn on Sanders if he won?

September 11, 2015 in Uncategorized | by Eric Kirk

Absolutely. But I think there would be a week or two of a honeymoon.

This writer thinks he would be on our s— list immediately.

Sanders himself has warned about the limitations of his power even if he wins.

September 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

64 comments

Comments feed for this article

September 11, 2015 at 11:46 am

Dave Kirby

Interesting topic. I think the Tea Baggers have pretty much taken the sting out of the word “socialism” . I mean they think the president is a communist. For those of us who grew up during the cold war those words were political poison. To todays younger generation the terms are pretty much meaningless. The irony of the situation is that the last time the 1% controlled as much capital as they do now was 1928 and socialism was considered a viable alternative to the robber barons. Wonder what the baggers would make of F.D.R. ?

September 11, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Eric Kirk

No, it’s not what it was. Anti-socialists have lost a lot of ground with regard to the word. I was talking to a mostly apolitical woman yesterday who said she likes Trump but won’t vote for him, but can’t vote for Clinton. I brought up Sanders and she said, “I’m for some socialism. I used to think that Obamacare was socialism but it’s not. I wish it was more socialist.”

I’m not going to put her on the spot as many readers might know her and do business with her, but I will say that I was surprised to her her say this.

September 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Mitch

Well, as Dave Kirby says above, it’s 1928 again. Greed has pushed the pendulum so far it’s bound to start swinging back, and with energy.

September 11, 2015 at 12:24 pm

veryhumbleharold

I know that Bernie will never get the Left’s support as long as he waffles on Israel. He’s keeping quiet about Israel and that’s not a good sign of moral integrity to me. You do know that Israel fields “liberals” like Tikkun’s rabbi Lerner to capture and neutralize anti-Zionist Jews and one can test this criticism easily by trying to post anything on Tikkun that calls for the U.N. to Redress the Partition of Palestine crime that allowed European Zionists to take Palestine away from Palestinians. I told you Israel will not allow any anti-Zionist candidate to run for President so let’s see if Bernie’s a stealth candidate sealing Israel’s complete control of American politics. And remember, any Jewish candidate for President only solidifies Muslim opinion Israel owns America’s foreign policy.

Where is the Democratic leader who can unite the majority of Americans into one voting block? Electing Bernie really wouldn’t be all that much different than the Republicans electing Donald Trump. Neither one can pull together all Americans and both are riding on the continuing erosion of American two-party politics by Mammon serving politicians.

September 11, 2015 at 1:55 pm

Eric Kirk

One down!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-ends-presidential-campaign_55f3427ee4b063ecbfa46be7?ir=Politics&section=politics&utm_campaign=091115&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

September 11, 2015 at 2:49 pm

Mitch

For sale: one pair of fashionable non-prescription “reading-style” glasses, lightly used.

September 11, 2015 at 5:50 pm

Just Watchin

I saw an interesting article today. While they were both in the Senate together, Bernie and Hillary voted the same 92.5 % of the time.

September 11, 2015 at 6:21 pm

Anonymous

Sure, no surprise there, but the 7.5% of the time they didn’t vote the same includes some biggies, like the war in Iraq and the so-called “Patriot” Act.

September 11, 2015 at 8:17 pm

Eric Kirk

Here’s how their voting records differ.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/93635-8-key-ways-bernie-sanders-voting-record-differs-from-hillary-clintons

I’d be curious to see how either of them match up with Republicans. I would assume that there would be at least 50 percent matchup with any of them considering that the vast majority of legislation isn’t particularly ideological.

At one point Clinton was rated the 11th most liberal member of the Senate. Sanders was number 1.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/hillary-clinton-was-11th-most-liberal

September 12, 2015 at 8:00 am

Henchman Of Justice

EK @ 12:15,

Not surprising that former capitalists desire socialism.

Capitalism was hijacked by those in power and control who take more from us all every day.

Capitalism don’t feel good in the pocket any longer for so many.

It will be interesting what percentage of eligible voters will actually vote compared to how many people who could be eligible, but are not.

When less voters vote, the votes are casted by a higher percentage of the politically greedy, the socially greedy, etc…

Pensions, government jobs, consumer products, wage controls, rent controls, affordable housing, parks and trails, water rights takings, industry needs and wants, etc….the voters become quarantined into a classless bunch of people who only care about decisions that affect them only (their personal capitalism which is usually subsidized by their victims).

I hope Mitch understands.

JLM5D

September 12, 2015 at 11:00 am

Mitch

Here is what any President is up against:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/09/could-coup-happen-in-united-states/

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then among people who identify as Republicans, more are traitors to the U.S. constitution and what’s left of our democracy than support it, by about 55% to 45%. And I’m sure they think they are patriots, which lends a bit of black humor to our situation.

September 12, 2015 at 11:59 am

Henchman Of Justice

Mitch,

A 43% republican coup support number, wow, very intriguing, but what is the percentage of 3rd parties because the last two figures show overall, Americans overall support a coup @ 43% (interesting its the same % as Republican stat) while 29% won’t. That leaves a gap of 28%. Is the 28% 3rd party + children, the homeless, the bedridden at home or hospital, prison inmates, back to landers, etc… A statistical poll is based upon who is polled or how certain desired stats/ratings are to be answered or are to be included as part of the answer (statistical poll results)

If we note conservatively, since liberals are not conservative with numbers of math, 43% overall + (25% of 28% = 7%) EQUALS 50% of America overall could support a coup.

If we not liberally, since conservatives underscore numbers of math, 43% + (75% of 28% = 21%) EQUALS 64% of America could support a coup.

A coup is included as part of fighting tyranny isn’t it? This is what the Constitution encourages, yes? If not, why?

America is a democratic republic where,

1) people can become eligible voters and practice democracy at the local level and

2) people overall regardless of voting eligibility are censused for state and federal political representation purposes.

Hence, Popular vote and Electoral votes………

JLM5D

September 12, 2015 at 7:49 pm

Anonymous

Latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Bernie down by less than 9 points to Hillary nationally:

Hillary 39
Bernie 30.7
Joe 15.9

A week ago, Hillary was ahead by 20 points in this poll:

Hillary 45.1
Bernie 25
Joe 16.6

And it’s a 5 day rolling poll (each day they drop the data that is six days old and add the new data from the current day, and average the 5 days) so Bernie’s number in today’s polling is probably a point or two higher, and Hillary’s a point or two lower. What makes me think so? Just look at the trend lines:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR131/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150808-20150911/collapsed/false

As always, it’s just one poll, and of course it could be an outlier. But all the polls are basically moving in the same direction — Hillary’s numbers continue to drop, Bernie’s continue to rise. If the trend of the last couple of weeks continues, within just a couple of weeks we would see the first poll showing Bernie tied with or leading Hillary.

I’m guessing there is not one single establishment pundit or journalist that foresaw this when Bernie announced his candidacy. But to be fair, neither did I.

September 12, 2015 at 10:47 pm

bob

anon 7:49pm

shame on you for failing to predict that sanders would be gaining on or passing clinton in the polls. what do you think you are a mainstream media maven(i’m reluctant to call them journalists)?

September 13, 2015 at 6:37 am

Henchman Of Justice

Anonymous @ 7:49,

For as long as HOJ has been cognizant and aware of politics, liberals keep playing one card over and over again…….women’s rights.

The problem NOW is women’s rights is like a beatdown on a dead horse.

Women’s rights have expanded every year but liberals feel that we need 250+ years straight before the faux pas-esque women’s movement is allowed to fizzle.

HOJ is sick of Clinton constantly making claims that women are victims. Clinton bets she gets a majority of feminist votes.

Now, if men were being championed as victims in society, are men internally engineered to automatically flock to that candidate or does that candidate lose voters who are men that don’t believe men are victims as much as women are victims, etc….

When does a candidate, preferably a woman, champion men as victims in society too?

One war we got in the country is a gender war, whether ya believe it or not.

When gender equality went overboard, the pendulum on the ole grandfather clock got stuck to the left nearest where the 8:00 o’clock marked position is located.

Oh how HOJ loathes entrenched politicians who say anything to drum up emotional, false gentrified votes.

JLM5D

September 13, 2015 at 10:19 am

Anonymous

Latest YouGov poll —

New Hampshire:

Bernie 52
HIllary 30
Joe 9

Iowa:

Bernie 43
Hillary 33
Joe 10

South Carolina:

HIllary 46
Bernie 23
Joe 22

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/

September 13, 2015 at 10:25 am

Mitch

If Bernie wins South Carolina in the general election I’m going to start a magazine warning people about chemtrails.

September 13, 2015 at 11:49 am

Anonymous

Bernie doesn’t need to win S.C. in the general election, neither does Hillary or Joe. Bernie does need to make a good showing in the South Carolina primary in order to maintain momentum if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. He doesn’t necessarily need to win outright in SC, but he needs to make it a fairly close race and show that he can be competitive in Southern states and states with sizable minority populations.

September 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm

Mitch

I hope Bernie wins.

I think “a good showing” in South Carolina (or Mississippi, or Tennessee, or Oklahoma) would be ten percent. If anyone like Bernie Sanders ever becomes President, it’s not going to be thanks to the enlightenment of Oklahoma.

I won’t join in the “he has no chance” brigades. But his challenge will be considerable.

Returning to Chez Pazienza’s insightful article, which Eric pointed out, I think Mr. Pazienza describes a very real dynamic, one of which I’m sure Senator Sanders is well aware.

For a long time, I haven’t considered this country’s future very stable at all. None of us, to my knowledge, has lived through a revolution or a coup. I think many young Americans may well live through one during their lifetimes. I wish I’d studied more history; I’m pretty confident that a historical perspective will serve people well over the next few decades.

That yougov poll on attitudes towards a military takeover scares me quite a bit.

September 13, 2015 at 12:56 pm

Anonymous

I won’t join in the “he has no chance” brigades. But his challenge will be considerable.

Yup, no doubt about it. And as I wrote in another thread, if it becomes a three way Bernie-Hillary-Joe race, Bernie might win more delegates than either Hillary or Joe, but unless he wins over 50% of the delegates he could still be denied the nomination if one of them threw their support to the other (which I think would be quite likely).

September 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm

Dave Kirby

Mitch …you’re forgetting Bush/Gore in Florida. That was pretty much a coup thanks to a crooked state government and a complicit supreme court. Later info showed Gore won and it wasn’t even that close.

September 13, 2015 at 3:07 pm

HUUFC

From wikipedia, “Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots, and under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium.” Good grief Mr. Kirby, if your going to lie, at least do it better.

September 13, 2015 at 4:06 pm

Henchman Of Justice

Mitch,

You nailed an important point that many Americans personally fail at ……………….understanding history.

Like right now, China is amassing as much gold as possible to counter the fiat currency debt that exists from the outstanding bills of America’s overconsumption.

No different in the 1950’s, France and Spain exchanged their held American cash dollars for gold to counter the fiat debt created by American overconsumption.

Add into the debt the amnual deficit crunches caused by large government and waste, social welfare programs, military expenditures in WW2, Korea and Vietnam, + a booming American economy into the early 1970’s convinced Nixon that fiat debt could continue for a long time before any real concern could come into fruition. Also, Nixon changed the rules on other countries by disallowing exchange of cash dollars for gold knowing that Americas fiat scamming could be undermined by the collection and stockpiling of gold to counter Americas debt, just like China is doing now.

Since the 1950’s or longer, it has been illegal for American citizens to exchange dollars for gold at a banking institution. Further, to buy gold as a citizen is not as easy as you’d think.

Add into the equation the bond markets (Petrobas of Brazil, etc…) and we got one hell of a financial Armageddon coming for many countries.

JLM5D

September 13, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Mitch

More ballots were cast for Gore than were cast for Bush in Florida, according to the Florida Ballot comprehensive recount performed under the auspices of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts

Thanks for the reminder, Dave, of the least supportable supreme court decision of our lifetimes.

September 13, 2015 at 4:52 pm

HUUFC

Mr. Mitch, notice the byline on the article “Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)”. So the opinion of the writer is that Gore won but the analysis was never done. So George Bush WON THE ELECTION. Get over it people! Find something more important and timely to worry about. Like the deficit and the debt, the rise of muslim fanaticism across the world, the appetite of Putin, Iranians getting the nuclear weapon, good grief!

September 13, 2015 at 5:21 pm

Mitch

HUUFC,

This may be the one thing on which we agree — there are more timely things to worry about.

For myself, I’ll never forget that the GOP wasn’t above using its staffer to create an atmosphere of physical threat — the Brooks Brothers Riot — in order to prevent a full count, but that’s in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

September 13, 2015 at 5:25 pm

veryhumbleharold

If Bernie’s elected to head the Democratic Party presidential campaign, the Dems will lose the election to yahoo Republicans and disgruntled Democrats still conditioned to fear socialism, especially socialism coming from an old man running for office. will outvote liberals as America still is basically conservative. Only a younger charismatic man like JFK can really pull off what is needed–a leader who can pull the majority of Americans together in some semblance of sanity. We’ve needed such for a long time, a leader in the Code of the West tradition. If such a one appears, Bernie will be dropped like a hot potato but where is such? Shabani’s still locked up in Japan..

September 14, 2015 at 5:22 am

Just Watchin

Yep…..Wikipedia is my go to source for the truth. It’s where I first learned that pink eye is caused when someone farts on your pillow, David Beckham is Chinese, and Nancy Pelosi is a vampire, something I had suspected for years and was glad to see it confirmed by such a credible source.
And if you’re going to rehash the Bush/Gore thing, shouldn’t you be having some cheese with that whine?

September 14, 2015 at 6:10 am

Mitch

JW,

Wikipedia is hardly my source for the truth. But for events with which I was familiar with when they happened, it’s a convenient place to locate a well-footnoted summary. Anyone interested can follow the footnotes. There is no controversy regarding the Brooks Brothers Riot and its participants, because there is photographic proof of identities involved.

That thing about the “cheese with that whine.” I get it, “wine”/”whine”! It’s really clever and I’ve never heard it before; did you come up with it yourself?

September 14, 2015 at 7:11 am

Henchman Of Justice

Time,

Past, present and future.

A machine to travel back in time does not exist.

Our memories are “time travel”, but as Back to the Future provides, changing the course of time puts a flux in the time and space continuum.

Bush/Gore in Florida was actually a good thing because it woke more voters up to be anti establishment. Same goes for the campaign cycles since which makes it interesting to see how evolved the anti establishment has become.

Death to the two party system!

JLM5D

September 14, 2015 at 8:05 am

HUUFC

The way back machine, the Brooks Brothers Riot wasn’t a riot, and happened after the election was certified and George Bush won. Move along, nothing happened here.

September 14, 2015 at 8:36 am

Eric Kirk

HUUFC – it is telling that the Supreme Court majority, knowing they were legally off-base, instructed lawyers across the country to never cite the case as precedent because it was “fact specific.” The decision says basically that in a given state every county must have an identical recount system, which isn’t practical and they knew it. It also imposed a “safe harbor” requirement which was not in the Florida statutes. Basically a huge overreach. Nobody has paid attention – they cite it anyway – and it’s generated a lot of confusion in the law ever since.

However, if the newspapers are right, Bush would have won anyway in those four counties. It also revealed that if Gore hadn’t tried to play it cute with only four counties and had called for a statewide recount, he would have prevailed (if the Supreme Court allowed it).

Bottom line however is that the Presidency was won on a miscount of Florida votes – even if you don’t count all of the black voters who weren’t allowed to vote because their registration was specifically attacked while white voters weren’t.

Anyway, on to current news – the Republicans have a serious problem. Their front runner isn’t doing well among independents. He’s the only candidate in the top 5 Republicans who loses to Sanders.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/30/poll-shows-bernie-sanders-crush-donald-trump-2016-presidential-match.html

September 14, 2015 at 9:34 am

Anonymous

Bernie’s speech at Liberty University this morning (Bernie is introduced at about 15 minutes in).

http://www.c-span.org/video/?328079-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-remarks-liberty-university

He begins by bluntly noting that he supports women’s rights, abortion rights, gay rights and same-sex marriage, and that he realizes that differs from the position of most at Liberty U. Goes on to make the argument that on economic issues, there should be able to be some common ground.

How well received his overall message was by actual Liberty U. students, I don’t know. He received some applause for his blunt statements of support for women’s rights and gay rights, but I assume that was mostly from the Bernie supporters who were not students, who were also allowed to attend. But he received big applause from what seemed like just about the whole audience at a number of points later in the speech.

However it went over at Liberty U., the fact that he spoke there made great press nationally, and reinforces his image as the insurgent candidate, barnstorming the country and delivering the same Big Picture message in any setting, even in what might be considered ideologically hostile territory like Liberty U.

And while he might not get many conservative evangelical christian votes in the general election, and probably even less in the primaries, this kind of appearance may help with independent and moderate voters, as it shows a willingness to engage in civil discourse, and not to let areas where (at least for now) we must “agree to disagree” prevent us from seeking common ground wherever possible.

September 14, 2015 at 10:23 am

Eric Kirk

The headline at TPM – “Sanders Tells Liberty U: Sorry, But The US Was Founded On ‘Racist Principles'”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-racism-bible-verses

That’s the kind of headlines he needs right now. Independents might not like it, but independents have very short memories. Right now he needs black voters. I know it makes it sound like a horse race and all, but the fact of the matter is that it’s very much like a horse race, and if you want to win you have to play it competitively.

And you have to take chances. This is a big gamble!

September 14, 2015 at 10:45 am

Anonymous

Good point. And this was classic Bernie — straight to point, says what he thinks, no beating around the bushes. This is what gives me hope that he will pick up more support among minorities (and women) as the campaign continues. Both his strong positions on issues impacting minorities and women, and his willingness to bluntly call out racism, sexism and bigotry — and as he showed today, even to an audience of conservative evangelical christians — should stand him in good stead as he continues to make his case to the voters.

September 14, 2015 at 11:56 am

Eric Kirk

It should get him into the headlines. He needs Fox News attacking him right now, and maybe this will do it.

September 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Anonymous

Here’s the part of the Q & A where he was asked about racism:

September 14, 2015 at 12:22 pm

Anonymous

I love that he specifically included anti-gay hate groups in his condemnation of hate groups. May have been an uncomfortable moment for many in the audience, but…good, it should be.

September 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm

Just Watchin

FOX would never attack anyone running against Clinton

September 14, 2015 at 9:29 pm

Eric Kirk

George Will did. It’s kind of lame, but pickins is slim.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/14/will-on-sanders-dont-get-whole-outsider-shtick-hes-doing/

September 15, 2015 at 7:06 am

Henchman Of Justice

Bernie was truthful in asserting that America was founded on racist principles.

This statement won’t hurt him among many white voters who, after reading the US Constitution, would agree.

If black slaves and red natives were not allowed to be equally treated under the laws, then the obviously that portion of the song…..”This land is your land, this land is my land, from California, to the New York island…….this land belongs to you and me”……!

Remember everyone, our grandparents generation for us mid thirties and older are, for lack of political etiquette, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!

So, more conservative whites, independent whites, liberal whites, etc….. will agree.

Bernie affirming his stance will garner more minority votes, and don’t think Hispanics or Chinese or Irish or whoever can’t or won’t claim historically their skin color or culture was also treated like black slaves or red natives and they know it.

JLM5D

September 15, 2015 at 3:27 pm

Anonymous

I was wondering how long Hilary’s campaign would be able to hold out before they started going negative against Bernie. And now we have the answer:

“Let the anti-Bernie Sanders red-baiting begin: Hillary Clinton’s super PAC wants you to know that he’s a socialist.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11?utm_hp_ref=politics

Let’s see, how does that saying go?

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
And then you win.

Of course in reality it can also end “And then you lose.” Either way, it’s now clear that we’ve arrived at step 3 “Then they fight you.” And in my view it’s significant that we’re now seeing negative attacks aimed at Bernie, coming from Hillary’s campaign (well, a pro-Hillary super PAC that of course, as we all know, cannot possibly be coordinating with Hillary’s campaign….yeah right). Clearly her campaign is getting nervous.

The game plan up to this point was to basically ignore Bernie, and basically refrain from criticizing him, because she wants his supporters in the general election, and the assumption was she was going to coast into this nomination, so there was no reason to risk alienating Bernie’s supporters. Now, they’re apparently worried enough to take that risk — even though that risk is now more problematic than ever, since as the number of Bernie’s supporters have grown to a substantial fraction of Democratic voters (and independents), Hillary needs their support more than ever in the general.

I think Hillary’s advisors are right to be worried, but I also think there’s a real chance that a strategy of going negative on Bernie may backfire on Hillary. It certainly reinforces the idea that Hillary is the candidate of dysfunctional, destructive politics as usual, complete with big-donor / super PAC funded negative campaigning, while Bernie is the small-donor grassroots candidate who refuses to engage in personal attacks, dismisses silly politics-as-a-circus distractions, and insists on a real debate on real issues. My sense is that’s not a bad place to be positioned in this election, especially in the Democratic primaries.

Of course this doesn’t mean that Bernie will be immune to negative attacks, but it does leave him well positioned on the moral high ground, while any negative-campaigning candidates (or their super PAC doppelgangers) will be in the position of slinging mud from below. Even if some of that mud sticks, he still may end up looking a lot less muddy than the mudslingers. If it comes to that — in other words if this is not just a trial balloon or an anomaly, but just the first of a series of escalating attacks to come — it will be interesting to see whether or how much it actually damages Bernie…or Hillary.

September 15, 2015 at 3:43 pm

Anonymous

Meanwhile, another New Hampshire poll shows Bernie with a 7 point lead over Hillary. Interestingly, she leads by a slender margin among Democrats, but Bernie leads by a large margin with unaffiliated voters (who are allowed to vote in the primary), and large margins among young and new voters. He even leads Hillary among women, 42% – 38%.

Remember, women are supposed to be a big part of Hillary’s so-called “firewall,” the idea that she has unshakable support among certain demographics, especially women and minorities. As we all know, Bernie is looking to South Carolina and other early minority-heavy states to show that he can break through with minorities, but I’m frankly a bit surprised that he is already besting her among women voters in NH.

No wonder Hillary’s campaign seems to be getting increasingly nervous about Bernie’s growing support. They can read these polls too, and of course presumably they have their own internal polling which is likely showing broadly the same trends as the public polling.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-poll/index.html

September 15, 2015 at 3:59 pm

Anonymous

Bernie’s campaign responds forcefully to the attack from the pro-Hillary super PAC, and looks to turn it to his advantage.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-poll/index.html

It’s a classic bit of political jujitsu — not particularly original, but could be pretty effective in this case.

September 15, 2015 at 11:13 pm

Eric Kirk

I’m not even sure I understand the attack. He has some express solidarity with Corbyn, who just won an election in one of our closest ally countries, so that maybe he can be tied to Hugo Chavez, who is dead. Most people who would recognize either name are supportive or at least sympathetic to one or both. And there’s really no connection. Will Clinton slam Corbyn?

It’s kind of lame. Anything else?

September 16, 2015 at 6:13 am

Mitch

“Anything else?” may be the problem. He’s a dread Democratic Socialist, but that’s never been a secret and it doesn’t seem to have hurt him. They haven’t started in on his being Jewish yet, and I don’t know how they would use that, but I know it will be from a distance.

So a parade of people he likes who like people we think are bad is about the best they have, unless they can find a picture of him in bed with Osama bin Laden (which I’m sure their photoshop experts are working on right now).

September 16, 2015 at 7:31 am

Anonymous

You all realize you can discuss third rate politics indefinitely but you can’t accurately describe the weather?

September 16, 2015 at 7:53 am

Eric Kirk

I know. It must hard to understand why some people want to deal with real world issues and just don’t seem to have the time or energy to fret over clouds.

September 16, 2015 at 7:54 am

Eric Kirk

Mitch, the anti-Semitism will be subtle. It might even be framed as praise which just reminds everyone that he isn’t Christian.

But yes, pickins are slim.

September 16, 2015 at 9:24 am

HUUFC

Senator Sanders proposed plans would increase federal spending by $18 trillion over a decade. He also proposes $6.5 trillion in tax increases over the same period to pay for it. Hilarious! Anybody supporting this delusional is just about as delusional. (or just another product of the liberal higher education system)

September 16, 2015 at 9:25 am

HUUFC

That would be delusional “man”, my bad.

September 16, 2015 at 9:48 am

Eric Kirk

That’s one think tank analysis, but given that the most wealthy have been sitting on an unproductive 15 to 20 trillion since the 08 crash, prying some of the money out of their pillow cases would be beneficial to all.

September 16, 2015 at 9:58 am

HUUFC

Mr. Kirk, that’s their money not Sanders, yours, mine, or the federal governments.

September 16, 2015 at 10:25 am

Unk John

“Mr. Kirk, that’s their money not Sanders, yours, mine, or the federal governments.”

You’re absolutely right. They stole it fair and square.

September 16, 2015 at 10:27 am

Eric Kirk

I disagree actually. Money itself exists as a social construct – as Jesus said when pointing out that Caeser’s image was on the coin – “Render onto Caeser what is due Caeser.” It exists as public utility, and they acquired the money through the infrastructure – it would have no meaning without that infrastructure. It exists for social purpose. We have every right to tax that which is not being productive. You avoid the tax by investing. European countries have done this.

In the meantime, there is qualification to the WSJ figures.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9330931/bernie-sanders-spending-cost

September 16, 2015 at 10:41 am

Unk John

Not to belabor the point, but … well, since I live about 6 miles from the Canadian border and I listen to CBC a lot, I thought I’d share something I heard on a program called “My Playlist”. The host that day was Ian Tyson, probably most famous for one of his songs in the 60’s called “Four Strong winds.” He was talking about Ry Cooder. Then he said that one problem with Cooder is that he is prone to keeping his politics to himself. Then he played this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXHckAFMzaw

September 16, 2015 at 10:46 am

Anonymous

“We have every right to tax that which is not being productive. You avoid the tax by investing. European countries have done this.”

That’s why europe is the modern utopia. But only to those living in growing deserts covered with land mindes. Follow the money. The real reason money exists is because of indentured servitude. That’s the only reason money exists. You can see all around you, what happens to fellow people who, for whatever reason, aren’t participating in the “voluntary” process.

September 16, 2015 at 11:49 am

HUUFC

Using the police power of the government to take peoples property just because it can, scary. You may have the power but not the right.

September 16, 2015 at 1:55 pm

Eric Kirk

You know, there are limits to every right. I mean, years ago Progressive Magazine wanted to publish an article with instructions on building an H-Bomb and the government won a court injunction against it. One the one hand there is freedom of speech, press, and expression. On the other hand, we were talking about a fucking H-bomb!

Sitting on 15 trillion dollars while complaining that there’s nowhere to invest because nobody else has money to spend – that’s an H-bomb. It’s killing people.

I’m fine with property rights to a point. But if there’s a hungry child and there’s a fruit stand, and I don’t have the money to purchase the fruit, I’m going to steal it and give it to the child because the urgency of the child’s hunger exceeds the importance of the property rights.

That’s just how I see it.

September 16, 2015 at 3:35 pm

Anonymous

Even if, for the sake of argument, we take the $18 billion figure at face value, about 15 trillion of that $18 trillion figure — which is over 10 years, by the way — is the estimated cost of single payer “Medicare for All” health care. It’s not an additional cost to Americans, it’s money we’re already paying through health insurance premiums, for our current system where we pay much more per capita than countries with universal health care, yet get worse outcomes on things like infant mortality, and still have millions of uninsured folks.

Deduct this $15 trillion from the $18 trillion and you get $3 trillion, divide by 10 and you get $300 billion as annual cost of everything else Bernie has proposed. Which would be easily covered by Bernie’s proposed tax increases on top income brackets, a very modest tax on Wall street speculation, and the elimination of corporate loopholes that let companies like Exxon make tens of billions while paying no federal corporate income taxes. Those who have been getting richest fastest would be made to pay their fair share, while the American people would get free public university tuition, child and family leave, a trillion dollars worth of rebuilt infrastructure (and the millions of jobs that will create, directly and indirectly), and all the rest. Good deal for all but the super mega ultra rich (and in the long term, maybe for them too, considering that the last time we had income and wealth inequality this high was right before the economy collapsed into the Great Depression).

Of course none of this will happen overnight, President Bernie or not. But the same is true of most big social changes. Achieving those kinds of changes requires vision, courage, and often lots of time. But it’s crucially important to lay out a concrete agenda to move towards the vision, even if some of that agenda seems impossible to achieve in the short term.

September 16, 2015 at 3:40 pm

Anonymous

“I’m fine with property rights to a point. But if there’s a hungry child and there’s a fruit stand, and I don’t have the money to purchase the fruit, I’m going to steal it and give it to the child because the urgency of the child’s hunger exceeds the importance of the property rights.”

Not a great analogy to our current situation, unless the “fruit stand” is owned by a multi-billionaire. Bernie isn’t proposing to increase taxes on mom & pop fruit stand vendors, that’s what Republican policies that ease the tax “burden” on multi-billionaires and leave more of that burden to the middle class and working class do.

September 16, 2015 at 5:10 pm

Henchman Of Justice

EK @ 10:27,

There is something wrong with taxing what is not productive. That suggests that in America, if you don’t produce, you”ll have your rights violated. Now, that is fucked up.

JLM5D

September 19, 2015 at 5:38 am

Anonymous

Bernie gives his position on the really crucial issues facing America:

https://amp.twimg.com/v/f70a6d36-61ad-47ca-a8b4-d35c72c33acf

September 19, 2015 at 1:16 pm

Eric Kirk

Henchman, I don’t see taxes as a deprivation of rights. The primary purpose of government is the protection of wealth it’s how government developed. Since wealth is the primary beneficiary, it should pay for it’s own protection.

Call me a socialist.

	bolithio on Partisan/Faction breakdown on…
	Anonymous on Civil War Trailer
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Civil War Trailer
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Partisan/Faction breakdown on…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Partisan/Faction breakdown on…
	Anonymous on Good discussion of the normali…
	John on Partisan/Faction breakdown on…
	Just Trollin on Civil War Trailer
	Anonymous on Good discussion of the normali…
	Eric Kirk on Civil War Trailer
	Just Trollin on Civil War Trailer
	Eric Kirk on Trump’s jury is set
	Just Trollin on Good discussion of the normali…
	Just Trollin on We discuss the sociology of ru…
	Just Trollin on Good discussion of the normali…

Would the left turn on Sanders if he won?

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

64 comments

Leave a comment

Would the left turn on Sanders if he won?

Related

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

64 comments

Leave a comment