This sounds awfully like the Republican strategy for governance, which is to put off all the nations business until their party achieves that super majority that is always surely coming in the next election. If your platform relies on stream rolling the political opposition, then you don't have a platform. The Republican majority in congress is not going anywhere any time soon unless the supreme court steps in and deals with the rampant gerrymandering that has cemented their hold in congress, so you either find a way to work with them or you dont get shit done. I think Sanders is by far the most principled and decent person in this race, but a Sanders presidency would be an absolute failure in the face of Republican opposition.
You think Republicans are going to greenlight anything the "Hildabeast" proposes?
Again, Sanders has said, and I agree, that the only way that anything is able to move beyond the status quo, is if there is a political revolution that gets Sanders elected, with broad Democratic support in Congress.
That, actually, is the main thing that the US voter should take away from his campaign. We have the ability to change shit, but we have to stop voting for the same ol' shit. Sander's constant refrain about correcting economic inequality is basically just a broad goal that he, and a Democratic coalition, will work for, assuming the political revolution he says is required, actually occurs.
This is his appeal across party lines. He. Is. Honest.
To put it another way, HRC has basically no chance of enacting sweeping legislation, even as a center-right Democrat who is just a socially liberal 70s-era Republican.
And even Rubio-bot, Kasich, Jeb, Christie, etc, isn't going to be able to enact sweeping legislation, as the Republican party isn't likely going to get another 3-4 Senate seats in 2016, in which to overcome the new, Status-QuoApproved™ 60-vote hurdle to pass
anything.
That Matthews is pointing at Sanders and saying, "how", is hilarious, because again it ignored the very main f-ing point of Sanders' campaign. He says it and says it and says it: A political revolution is absolutely necessary to accomplish
anything at all.
Trump, though, is amazing, because he says that he will unilaterally perform miracles and do all sorts of things just by sheer willpower alone.
He is lying. Right to people's faces. And yet, somehow, people think that he is going to cause a political revolution, when he's lying about what he can do, and how he would accomplish it.
Trump and Sanders aren't just on two different wings of the political spectrum. Instead, they are both populists who have different relationships with veracity and reality.
One tells the truth - that the American people have to work to get him and allies elected, in order to get the change they want (a political revolution). Trump, on the other hand, is a Alpha-Conman, who promises to fix everything all by himself, without any work from the American people (a classic Strongman).
Sanders says it won't be easy, and it won't be immediate. Trump says just give him the power, and fucking boom bitches, America's Great Again. Just look at my bank account and my wife's tits...how can I be lying to you?
Facebook
Twitter