Bernie Sanders running for president

[Vic]

And no, I won't vote for Bernie (except in the highly unlikely event he's running in the general against Huckabee or Cruz).

 

[kage69]

Bernie definitely has the odds stacked against him, but I think it's funny to hear some harp on "socialism," when Sanders is probably the most critical of corporate socialism there is.

I like him because he's very intelligent, and an honest man. Not in anyone's pocket, and I really can't say that about anyone else in the race at this point. I do hope we get to see him in the debate circle. The republicans better hope he doesn't get the nod, he would brutally mop the floor with their ignorant asses. It would likely be one of those situations where Faux suddenly kills the feed in order to cover the breaking news about some hilariously irrelevant shit regarding a reality TV series.

His age isn't an issue to me so much. I usually worry about that when a person is also exhibiting signs of dementia or constant 'senior moments,' like McCain. Sanders has more mental acuity than some of the GOP hopefuls that are half his age. Same for integrity and critical thinking skills. I think he and Warren would be a good team.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think this is a plus for Sanders:

Meet Bernie Sanders, H1-B Skeptic.
[ ... ]
Sanders is very skeptical of the H-1B program, and has lambasted tech firms for hiring visa workers at the same time they're cutting staff. He's especially critical of the visa's use in offshore outsourcing.

"Last year, the top 10 employers of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing companies," Sanders said in a Senate speech in 2013. "These firms are responsible for shipping large numbers of American information technology jobs to India and other countries."
[ ... ]
There are some companies "in some parts of the country that are unable to attract American workers to do the jobs that are needed," said Sanders. But he also cites a Government Accountability Office report that said just over half of the H-1B workers are employed in entry-level jobs. He cites other studies that suggest H-1B workers are paid less than similarly employed U.S. workers. ...

More at the link.

 

[boomerang]

Both were heavy industry cities that had manufacturing at one point.
D's & R's are responsible for manufacturing disappearing.

The decline of Detroit was fully entrenched well before any manufacturing left town. But I do understand that it's a hugely convenient scapegoat that is used as a talking point. Living within close proximity of the city, I feel I know far more about the situation that someone who does not or has not.

Baltimore, I know very little about so I won't comment further.

 

[boomerang]

What about the Democrats' "rule" of wealthy cities like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston, etc.?
And wasn't net neutrality supposed to make that kind of talk illegal by now?
Seriously, if you quit regurgitating these spoon fed talking points, you'd quit looking so stupid.

Regarding the bolded, huh?

Vic, Vic, Vic, why are you letting my opinions get under your skin? You just always seem to be an unhappy guy. My 'spoon fed talking points' are in this instance entirely factual.

Honestly, I find your commentary to typically border on the nonsensical but do you see me taking you to task for any of it? I see nothing to gain from doing that. When you take me to task, all I see is an unhappy guy furthering his unhappiness. Sounds like an early grave in the making.

Maybe Monday morning you can foreclose on some families and your day will get brighter.

 

[Jhhnn]

Regarding the bolded, huh?

Vic, Vic, Vic, why are you letting my opinions get under your skin? You just always seem to be an unhappy guy. My 'spoon fed talking points' are in this instance entirely factual.

Honestly, I find your commentary to typically border on the nonsensical but do you see me taking you to task for any of it? I see nothing to gain from doing that. When you take me to task, all I see is an unhappy guy furthering his unhappiness. Sounds like an early grave in the making.

Maybe Monday morning you can foreclose on some families and your day will get brighter.

Nice bit of denial, seeing as how you never addressed Vic's points, but, uhh, never mind, right?

 

[AmdEmAll]

Last republican I liked was Ron Paul.. we saw how that turned out. I can't stand the republican party in general.. also don't like Hilary. I would love to see Bernie Sanders president. Finally someone that actually gives a shit about the low and middle class.

 

[cirrrocco]

Last republican I liked was Ron Paul.. we saw how that turned out. I can't stand the republican party in general.. also don't like Hilary. I would love to see Bernie Sanders president. Finally someone that actually gives a shit about the low and middle class.

and this great country. Shit, these republican corporate mofos fucked this country up. Growing up my dad used to say Made in USA is the gold standard. Now every fucking thing i find in the store is Made in China.

so what if we have to pay our people more and it costs more to make something, the people are going to spend their money inside this country.

How the hell is it that on a single persons income , we were able to run a family , buy a house, a car and all the necessities and now even with mom and dad working , people barely make ends meet.

This is ridiculous and not sure why the middle class and the poor people haven't lynched these politicians and bankers

 

[Vic]

Regarding the bolded, huh?

Vic, Vic, Vic, why are you letting my opinions get under your skin? You just always seem to be an unhappy guy. My 'spoon fed talking points' are in this instance entirely factual.

Honestly, I find your commentary to typically border on the nonsensical but do you see me taking you to task for any of it? I see nothing to gain from doing that. When you take me to task, all I see is an unhappy guy furthering his unhappiness. Sounds like an early grave in the making.

Maybe Monday morning you can foreclose on some families and your day will get brighter.

Oh c'mon, I'm looking forward to you even addressing one of my comments, much less 'taking me to task.'

And no, I'm not unhappy. Or at least no more so than you seem to be. I just have a low tolerance for ideological bullshit. And when you see the same silly talking point over and over again when there isn't a Republican-controlled major city in the entire country for the past several decades except Indianapolis.. it gets annoying.

And I got out of foreclosures a couple of years ago. The market is up in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Vic]

Now there's an interesting bit of fairly recent political history all on its own.. why do all the big cities vote Democratic?
I can't speak for other cities, but my hometown of Portland, OR is an interesting study. Today, it is considered one of the bluest of the blue, but historically it was a Republican stronghold. What happened? Let's just say that the Reagan/Bush years were dark times, as first Reagan dumped thousands of former mental patients on our city with one-way bus passes, and then Bush used the S&L crisis to seize a fully solvent local financial institution, resulting in $10 billion in investor losses (in 1980s dollars) and the near collapse of our local real estate market. And, there has not been a Republican mayor of Portland or governor of Oregon since.
But we're just stupid liburuls.

 

[boomerang]

And no, I'm not unhappy. Or at least no more so than you seem to be. I just have a low tolerance for ideological bullshit. And when you see the same silly talking point over and over again when there isn't a Republican-controlled major city in the entire country for the past several decades except Indianapolis.. it gets annoying.

But therein lies your problem. You have attributed to me things I did not say. You have drawn conclusions based on nothing and with no evidence to back it up.

Let's analyze what I said. I'll break it down into separate parts and leave off the superfluous portions. Just the meat of what I said.

Detroit (53 years under Democrat rule)

Correct or incorrect?

Baltimore (48 years under Democrat rule)

Correct or incorrect?

That's what I said. Anything else that your brain swirled up in whatever fog you're in is solely on you. You see, you took those two statements and made it into something that frankly, sounds like you've got some kind of guilty conscience thing going on. Then, in a childlike manner you want me to explain why there are some other cities that you feel are doing better. You're daring me to explain why something you feel I inferred, that I didn't infer, isn't so. I'm sorry but grade school was in my rear view mirror a long, long time ago. You should put it in yours too.

I only spoke of Detroit and Baltimore. The rest is on you.

When a city is in tatters and that city has been under the sole control of a specific political party for many, many decades, where does the blame lie for the state the city is in? There, now I said something. See the difference?

 

[mnewsham]

From everyone I have talked to about it, we much prefer Sanders to Hillary.

 

[bshole]

When a city is in tatters and that city has been under the sole control of a specific political party for many, many decades, where does the blame lie for the state the city is in?

With the free trade privateers who sold America down the river.

 

[Vic]

But therein lies your problem. You have attributed to me things I did not say. You have drawn conclusions based on nothing and with no evidence to back it up.

Let's analyze what I said. I'll break it down into separate parts and leave off the superfluous portions. Just the meat of what I said.

Correct or incorrect?

Correct or incorrect?

That's what I said. Anything else that your brain swirled up in whatever fog you're in is solely on you. You see, you took those two statements and made it into something that frankly, sounds like you've got some kind of guilty conscience thing going on. Then, in a childlike manner you want me to explain why there are some other cities that you feel are doing better. You're daring me to explain why something you feel I inferred, that I didn't infer, isn't so. I'm sorry but grade school was in my rear view mirror a long, long time ago. You should put it in yours too.

I only spoke of Detroit and Baltimore. The rest is on you.

When a city is in tatters and that city has been under the sole control of a specific political party for many, many decades, where does the blame lie for the state the city is in? There, now I said something. See the difference?

So it's the Democrats fault that Detroit is poor, but not the Democrats fault that San Francisco is so wealthy, even though the party runs both cities?
You're a sad excuse for a partisan hack.

Anyway, I've done enough business in SE Michigan to know that much of Detroit's problems originate in Oakland county.

 

[glenn1]

Now there's an interesting bit of fairly recent political history all on its own.. why do all the big cities vote Democratic?
I can't speak for other cities, but my hometown of Portland, OR is an interesting study. Today, it is considered one of the bluest of the blue, but historically it was a Republican stronghold. What happened? Let's just say that the Reagan/Bush years were dark times, as first Reagan dumped thousands of former mental patients on our city with one-way bus passes, and then Bush used the S&L crisis to seize a fully solvent local financial institution, resulting in $10 billion in investor losses (in 1980s dollars) and the near collapse of our local real estate market. And, there has not been a Republican mayor of Portland or governor of Oregon since.
But we're just stupid liburuls.

Evidently you must know yourself when you talk about "stupid liberals" since most of your complaints originated with Democrats. Such as the 1963 Community Mental Health Act which began the drive towards "dumping" the former mental patients in your cities along with the 1965 changes to Medicare which shifted costs to the Feds and led to increased support for de-institutionalization. But you go on thinking it was evil Ronald Reagan who did it.

As for the S&L allegation, if you're talking about Frankin then you're wrong on your numbers by a full order of magnitude. I'd however contend that Portland's "Smart Growth" policies have been a far bigger driver (for better or worse) of your real estate market than a one-time event to mark to market properties which lost value in a real estate crash.

 

[nickqt]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and sounds tame compared to socialist candidates running for President 100+ years ago, such as Eugene Debs.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist, and would fit in well with most centrist-leaning parties of countries around the world you wouldn't mind living in if you had to live outside of the US.

The average Democrat in the US would fit in nicely with the conservative parties of the rest of the countries of the world you wouldn't mind living in if you had to live outside of the US.

It's all relative.

 

[Vic]

Evidently you must know yourself when you talk about "stupid liberals" since most of your complaints originated with Democrats. Such as the 1963 Community Mental Health Act which began the drive towards "dumping" the former mental patients in your cities along with the 1965 changes to Medicare which shifted costs to the Feds and led to increased support for de-institutionalization. But you go on thinking it was evil Ronald Reagan who did it.

As for the S&L allegation, if you're talking about Frankin then you're wrong on your numbers by a full order of magnitude. I'd however contend that Portland's "Smart Growth" policies have been a far bigger driver (for better or worse) of your real estate market than a one-time event to mark to market properties which lost value in a real estate crash.

Oh boy, the GOP ripped off Portland by only a billion dollars under Bush I. My bad.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure the residents of Detroit (53 years under Democrat rule) and Baltimore (48 years under Democrat rule) would agree with you.

lol +1

Both were heavy industry cities that had manufacturing at one point.
D's & R's are responsible for manufacturing disappearing.

True, but every single thing attributed to Republicans was also done with the connivance of Democrats. Unlike the Dems, the Pubbies never held a veto-proof majority, or even anything close to it.

The manufacturing disappeared because it was cheaper for industry to do it elsewhere. Neither party could have kept them there even if they tried. You simply cannot sustain a wealthy, advanced society on a backbone of low skilled manufacturing jobs.

Sure they could, and for decades they did when the Republicans were the party of individual liberty and the Democrats represented the American middle class. Our federal government was originally funded heavily on excise taxes and import tariffs, and if things got too out of balance import quotas would be placed. Goods were relatively more expensive - there are no free lunches - but our nation benefited from a strong middle class and strong, wholly American corporations (some of which were admittedly robber barons, but that too can be fixed.)

Everything we produce is more cheaply produced elsewhere. If you believe we simply cannot sustain a wealthy, advanced society on a backbone of low skilled manufacturing jobs, try sustaining a wealthy, advanced society on a backbone of low skilled retail jobs cutting each other's hair and selling each other cheap imported goods.

 

[Jhhnn]

Evidently you must know yourself when you talk about "stupid liberals" since most of your complaints originated with Democrats. Such as the 1963 Community Mental Health Act which began the drive towards "dumping" the former mental patients in your cities along with the 1965 changes to Medicare which shifted costs to the Feds and led to increased support for de-institutionalization. But you go on thinking it was evil Ronald Reagan who did it.

Gawd. That's some of the lamest denial possible, like blaming the CRA act of 1977 for the housing bust in 2008.

As for the S&L allegation, if you're talking about Frankin then you're wrong on your numbers by a full order of magnitude. I'd however contend that Portland's "Smart Growth" policies have been a far bigger driver (for better or worse) of your real estate market than a one-time event to mark to market properties which lost value in a real estate crash.

 

[glenn1]

Gawd. That's some of the lamest denial possible, like blaming the CRA act of 1977 for the housing bust in 2008.

Well then please specify exactly what Reagan did that you think precipitated de-institutionalization. Then you can explain why you oppose it and think that holding non-dangerous people against their will in a mental facility is a good thing even though the ACLU and many other "serious" people on the left disagree.

 

[werepossum]

Well then please specify exactly what Reagan did that you think precipitated de-institutionalization. Then you can explain why you oppose it and think that holding non-dangerous people against their will in a mental facility is a good thing even though the ACLU and many other "serious" people on the left disagree.

Lol hope you've got your spittle shields up. You could get a more cogent and less foamy response asking a rabid elephant to explain string theory.

 

[Vic]

Well then please specify exactly what Reagan did that you think precipitated de-institutionalization. Then you can explain why you oppose it and think that holding non-dangerous people against their will in a mental facility is a good thing even though the ACLU and many other "serious" people on the left disagree.

Absolutely. While deinstitutionalization had been a goal for many liberal groups for some time and for exactly the reasons you mentioned, the agenda had always been to accomplish it gradually and replace the giant state mental hospitals with smaller local mental health centers and clinics.
What Reagan did, specifically, was to use the 1981 omnibus budget act to repeal the Mental Health System Act (signed by Carter, which provided the funding for those local clinics) and, by 1985, to reduce federal funding for mental health by 89%. The inevitable results were tens of thousands of mentally ill people dumped on cities with no ability to deal with them, and a staggering increase in the number of mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system (so they ended getting locked up against their will anyway, and at the same or greater expense to the government).

 

[Vic]

Lol hope you've got your spittle shields up. You could get a more cogent and less foamy response asking a rabid elephant to explain string theory.

I hope my reply was sufficiently cogent and flat for you. I'll try to withhold any opinions I might have about the typical conservative's appreciation for advanced science like string theory, considering that most don't even accept evolution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well then please specify exactly what Reagan did that you think precipitated de-institutionalization. Then you can explain why you oppose it and think that holding non-dangerous people against their will in a mental facility is a good thing even though the ACLU and many other "serious" people on the left disagree.

Nice straw man. I never suggested that I opposed de-institutionalization. Just dumping them on the street w/o the help they need & can accept isn't the way to do it.

Absolutely. While deinstitutionalization had been a goal for many liberal groups for some time and for exactly the reasons you mentioned, the agenda had always been to accomplish it gradually and replace the giant state mental hospitals with smaller local mental health centers and clinics.
What Reagan, specifically, was to use the 1981 omnibus budget act to repeal the Mental Health System Act (signed by Carter, which providing the funding for those local clinics) and, by 1985, to reduce federal funding for mental health by 89%. The inevitable results were tens of thousands of mentally ill people dumped on cities who no ability to deal with them, and a staggering increase in the number of mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system (so they ended getting locked up against their will anyway).
Maybe now you can explain why you're a partisan bitch.

Thank You.

 

[Vic]

Evidently you must know yourself when you talk about "stupid liberals" since most of your complaints originated with Democrats. Such as the 1963 Community Mental Health Act which began the drive towards "dumping" the former mental patients in your cities along with the 1965 changes to Medicare which shifted costs to the Feds and led to increased support for de-institutionalization. But you go on thinking it was evil Ronald Reagan who did it.

Ugh.. sometimes I don't have time to read all the bullshit posted here, and I missed how you moved the goalposts in this case. The difference with those earlier deinstitutionalization efforts and what did Reagan did is that the former were funded and the latter was not.
Getting rid of the state mental hospitals is something that IMO both sides can generally agree on as a good thing. Dumping the mentally ill in the cities with one-way bus passes is a different thing entirely.