Bernie Sanders,..when push comes to shove, is the DNC serious with him?
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
Yes, and I agree to a certain extent. I think they want Hillary, as do the NeoCons, but if he proves popular enough, similar to Obama. They will simply bring him in, show him the JFK assassination video, and ask him if he has any more questions.
Too bad for them that he is 74 and a man of principle, but I think we agree that HRC is the establishment favorite.
She's a proven tool for the elite, as she is one of the elite herself. The establishment giggled like school girls when the Bush boys got into office. No reason to intimidate someone that is already on your side. That's why I never bought the Cheney controlled the White House BS. He was simply the focal point, to try and keep the Bush name from being forever bastardized. Judging by how some friends of mine who are liberals say they'd vote for him, if Hillary wasn't nominated, I'd say they are correct.
Sanders is in there to make the democrats look like they are actually having a primary instead of just automatically crowning the person they have been planning on nominating for the past 8 years.
It's more for show then anything. He's popular with the far left of the party on economic issues. But he'll never have the majority part of the party behind him nor will he have the SJWs. Everyone knows that.
He's careful with being critical of her. He doesn't want to bloody her up for the general election. In fact he's tried to help protect her from the E-mails scandal. I
This is all on purpose. Sanders knows his role. He will stay in it, probably win New Hampshire and making it look like a real contest before a few more states vote for Hilary and he quits the race and throws his support to Hilary.
After she wins, he's likely to see a cabinet post for his loyalty. There is a small chance he gets a VPOTUS nod, but I think Hilary will be looking for a young up and coming name for that slot. Someone who's a good candidate but just needs some national name recognition.
It's more for show then anything. He's popular with the far left of the party on economic issues. But he'll never have the majority part of the party behind him nor will he have the SJWs. Everyone knows that.
He's careful with being critical of her. He doesn't want to bloody her up for the general election. In fact he's tried to help protect her from the E-mails scandal. I
This is all on purpose. Sanders knows his role. He will stay in it, probably win New Hampshire and making it look like a real contest before a few more states vote for Hilary and he quits the race and throws his support to Hilary.
After she wins, he's likely to see a cabinet post for his loyalty. There is a small chance he gets a VPOTUS nod, but I think Hilary will be looking for a young up and coming name for that slot. Someone who's a good candidate but just needs some national name recognition.
That's what they said about Obama too in 2007. Don't let facts get in the way of your narrative though.
This time they picked someone about as completely different from Obama you could possibly get and still be on the same team.
Obama marketed himself as much more 'centrist' during the primaries than Sanders is presently doing.
Will 'hard' Dems choose HRC over Sanders? Maybe not, but the centrist Dems and Independents will more than likely swing to HRC.
Oh. So Obama isn't a socialist? I've been told for years he was along with a nazi, commie, facist, etc. Even though it should have never taken this long for you to admit that, it's nice to see that talking point get put to bed.
Beyond Iowa and New Hampshire Bernie Sanders has a serious polling problem. He's getting butchered in South Carolina and Nevada, and when the ring of Southern states have their primaries he'll be gone for sure. Clinton will club him like a baby seal in any state that has a significant black population.
He's not for real, and I agree with the poster that says Independents will go to HRC, and this is particularly true if Trump were to come out of the GOP. I still don't believe Trump is for real either, we're only a few months away from him bowing out in time to film a new reality show to air in September! Or maybe even get his own talk show...
No, being socialist is what I meant by "being on the same team".
Obama was young, Bernie is old.
Obama is black, Bernie is white.
Obama went to a Muslim school but claims to be Christian, Bernie is Jewish.
Obama is cool, Bernie is... not.
Obama is charismatic, Bernie comes off like an angry retiree after the bingo game got shut down.
All these guys running for POTUS are "tools for the elite". Bernie is the ONLY voice inn the wilderness that is different. The only one. Bernie represents another view.
In Bernie's world, only people in government and party executives will be the elites.
I think Bernie is everything you say he is not. Except being Jewish. Bernie is right and he is the only candidate in the field that understands what is killing America today is the disparity of wealth in this nation. He has made this "his issue" for 5 years.
THere is an old Bill Moyers' Show with Bernie as his guest that maybe you can youtube.....Bernie was genius on it...and Moyers is perhaps one of the best interviewers in the history of television/media. It was really a fascinating 30 minutes of tv.
Trad...you have NEVER listened to a word Bernie has spoken. You are ignorant here. However, IF YOU LISTEN to what he is saying, and you try to understand what he is saying, you won't be ignorant any more. Try it nd then come back to me.
There is more to Saunders than a 10 sec. sound byte.
If wealth envy is the worst thing that's happening in this country, then we are really a whiny bunch of vaginas.
I watched his debates, I've seen his youtube videos. He's a socialist. I don't agree with his policy prescriptions. We don't need more socialism, we need more liberty and freedom. People who are envious of rich people should take advantage of all the opportunities this country affords to become wealthy, too, instead of asking government to take the rich man's money away and give you free college with it.
We don't have freedom or liberty because we are giving it all away to corporations and allowing the wealthy to continually write the rules. We don't have "socialism"...we have "corporatism." Corporatisn is what is killing this country for the last 40 years.
We need to re-prioritize what this nation needs. "we the people" need to make these decisions, not some corporate entity. We cannot allow the money to continue to flow towards the wealthiest and the richest because of crony capitalism. Perhaps "free college" and "free healthcare" is a place to begin.
Remember, the GREATEST program this nation ever instituted was following WW2 when it GUARANTEED veterans FREE COLLEGE educations. The country leapt forward as it never had before once the GI BIll of Rights was instituted. You know Trad...if something works, why not go back to it again?
So you think they tagged a 74 year old independent that has been saying the same things for 30 years, and doesn't take petty attacks at people to be a puppet to make it look like there is a show?
I see.
Their foresight and long term game plan is phenomenal. Now I understand that the folk album all those years ago was to make him look human just for this primary.
Veterans... They did something to EARN it. Require students who want "free" college to do something for the country to earn that money. Military, Peace Corps, community service... SOMETHING.
Well, you have to look for the solution Trad.....we are dealing with a whole new generation now and a whole new set of values. Change is the one constant we have in life. Effective change towards desired goals is more desirable than change for no reason at all. You have to look to the FUTURE to achieve goals....looking to the past is called "history."
A little over 30 years ago, we stacked the deck against the middle class.......it was called "supply side economics".....I think a Republican POTUS once called it "voodoo economics".......The tax code has been bastardized to the point where the wealthy escape. There is no "flow" towards the middle class. It seems to all be going up towards the "1%"......
What a bunch of BS. The 80s were very prosperous and so was the 90s. Blaming anything going on today on anything Reagan did is beyond the pale.
And the death of the middle class is a myth.
Yep...prosperous as hell for the wealthy. Disastrous for the middle class. Deny it all you want....the fact remains......we are where we are. If it wasn't for planned inflation this nation would be broke.
President Obama, many Democrats and editorial page writers have been working to convince the nation that it is wracked by inequality, a disappearing middle class and a lack of opportunity. The charge of growing inequality is partly correct, mostly because those at the top of the income distribution have pulled away from the rest of us. But the other charges are wrong or misleading.
First, consider the claim that the nation’s economic growth in the past three decades has gone straight to the richest Americans. The focus on the “1 percent” too often leaves out consideration of the overall distribution of income. Economist Richard Burkhauser of Cornell shows in a forthcoming paper in National Tax Journal that, when the insurance value of health care and the value of certain government transfer payments are included in income, the top 20 percent of the income distribution experienced income growth of about 50 percent between 1979 and 2007 (in dollars adjusted for inflation).
He also notes that households near the top of the top 20 percent have achieved income gains of well above 50 percent. But the income of households between the 60th and 80th percentiles grew by 40 percent, and those in the 40th to 60th percentile grew by nearly 40 percent. In these numbers, the disappearing middle class appears pretty healthy.
What about those at the bottom, supposedly floundering? Based only on their market income, the bottom 20 percent lost about one-third of its income between 1979 and 2007. But when Burkhauser calculates the impact of government transfers, the value of health insurance not paid for by households and the decline in household size, the bottom 20 percent had about 25 percent more income in 2007 than 1979. Even the bottom is moving up.
These figures on total income obscure key points about economic well-being. First, health care gets more expensive every year, and the government must pay more through the tax code, Medicare and Medicaid. Those intent on emphasizing income inequality can ignore the value of health-care benefits, but most people consider it at least as great as the value of other types of income.
A second common mistake is ignoring the contribution of government benefits to income. Our federal income tax system sends billions of dollars to poor and low-income households, substantially increasing their income and taking a bite out of inequality. Households in the top 1 percent pay about 40 percent of federal income taxes, and the top 10 percent pays nearly 75 percent.
Put another way, the federal income tax system directly transfers billions in cash from the top to the bottom. Programs for poor and low-income families, including food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, Head Start and Pell Grants, annually transfer more than $900 billion in cash and other benefits to the poor and near-poor.
In the national debate about opportunity and inequality, people tend to talk about opportunity as if it were an omnipotent cosmic force imposed on Americans by a vicious capitalist economy, the effects of which are ignored by our uncaring government. But opportunity in America depends largely on decisions made by people who are free actors.
Consider three decisions that young people make: at what points to stop their education, begin work, and marry and have children. Brookings Institution calculations of census data for 2009, a deep recession year, show that adults who graduated from at least high school, had a job, and were both at least age 21 and married before having children had about a 2 percent chance of living in poverty and a better than 70 percent chance of making the middle class — defined as $65,000 or more in household income. People who did not meet any of these factors had a 77 percent chance of living in poverty and a 4 percent chance of making the middle class (or higher). Unless young Americans begin making better decisions, the nation’s problems with poverty and inequality will continue to grow. Consider also that children of parents whose income was in the bottom 20 percent have a 45 percent chance of remaining in the bottom themselves. But if they get a college degree, they cut those odds by nearly two-thirds and quadruple their chances of earning more than $100,000.
The most shocking failure of individual responsibility is the decline of marriage and rise of nonmarital births. Brookings data show that if the same share of adults were married today as in 1970, poverty would be reduced by more than a quarter. And yet young women who have a high school degree or less education increasingly do not marry, and about 40 percent of their babies are born outside marriage, quadrupling the chance that they and their babies will live in poverty. Children from single-parent families have, on average, more developmental problems, including lower educational achievement, than children of married parents. This perpetuates poverty and lack of mobility into the next generation.
Yes, the nation needs its safety net, but improvements in personal responsibility would have a greater and more lasting impact on poverty and opportunity. This is the message that our presidential candidates, media and educational institutions should emphasize — not the misleading focus on the lack of opportunity in America.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/03/29-middle-class-myth-haskins
The death of the middle class is a myth.
YEp, it's a lot like those people who placed the fake Obama birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspapers all those years ago!
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94