Have you seen this ad? "Bernie Sanders - The President We Need"

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



This is probably the most crucial part of his campaign, but if Bernie takes Iowa & New Hampshire it's game on baby!

Go Bernie!

Saddened, I have to wait until March 8th to vote in the primaries, here in Michigan.

though, I am excited this year! This is the first year I am actually aware of the primary vote date! (that is sad too!) I don't believe I am alone. I am going to stand up and hope this vote is heard here in Michigan.

Yeah I know what you mean.

My mom, who's been living in Missouri for 20+ years, told me she didn't think she had ever voted in her state's primary and wasn't sure if they even had one.

I looked it up and enlightened her.

The only problem I have now is getting her to vote for Bernie over Hillary. I'm not sure why, but she's having a hard time seeing Hillary for who she really is.

I too, would love to see the first woman POTUS during my lifetime, but Hillary is not the right one.

It's crucial that the first woman POTUS goes down in history as a success and I just don't see that happening if Hillary is elected.

The last thing you want to hear at the end of the first woman presidency is; "Wow, I'll never do that again!"

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You know he's right about the moral issue. People won't take care of each other, the family isn't what it used to be, of course people shouldn't go hungry. But that is an issue of morality, and not politics and government. People need to learn through other means how to care for others, not through legislature.

a reply to: TheTory

I've often heard the phrase, "You can't legislate morality" from those on the left who are pro-choice.

Yet, here we are.

Legislating morality.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheTory

I've often heard the phrase, "You can't legislate morality" from those on the left who are pro-choice.

Yet, here we are.

Legislating morality.

Eh to be honest that whole "legislate morality" thing has always been kinda shifty.
People seem to forget it was Al and Tipper Gore who was worried about making sure we gave a rating system to "Twisted Sister" Albums.

a reply to: Punisher75

I guess politicians have always tried legislating morality.

Probably why I'm disgusted with all of them.

www.kickthemallout.com...

a reply to: TheTory

I totally disagree.
It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure all of us are okay.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheTory

I totally disagree.
It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure all of us are okay.

Then why give away that responsibility to just a few in government?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet, here we are.

Legislating morality.

To make sure people aren't starving? In our own country?

Like he wrapped up the statement I posted earlier (his first):


................[it seems to me in the context of morality that] the very LEAST that we could say, is that nobody in America goes hungry.

That, I would hope, would be the LEAST that we could say
in a civilized, democratic society.
But - we can't even manage that?

a reply to: TheTory

But that is an issue of morality, and not politics and government. People need to learn through other means how to care for others, not through legislature.

Then kindly explain to me how the GOP debate last night brought "Jesus" into things,
and how those men don't say one WORD about making sure that others are housed, clothed, and fed,
and why they avoid the subject altogether?

How is it that they - the Onward-Marching-Christian-Soldiers -- don't have ONE THING to say about it?

Yeah. Please explain all of that to me.
The "morality" of Bernie is irrelevant? But the Holy-Roller-GOPer guys' ideas are "Christian"?

It's a real puzzle to me.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Then why give away that responsibility to just a few in government?

Because most of the gun-toting, flag-wrapped, Bible-thumping GOPers aren't interested in doing a damned thing about the hungry and homeless in our own country......
...they are interested in turning the Middle East into a sea of corpse-scented glass, and rounding up people who are here and giving them the boot, and rejecting homeless hungry people who need somewhere to go....


so - please tell me how they are going to beat Bernie in the General Election....on what grounds do they hold themselves superior?
Really?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Out of the entire selection of candidates, if I was an American citizen, I would be voting for Bernie Sanders for a myriad of reasons, not least being that he will be breaking up the banks and going after the godzillionaires.

I hope he wins the selection for the DNC and goes on to win the election, otherwise there will be hell toupee'.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I believe he is aware that the time has come for this storm to dump rain on the parade of the status quo. He has also made a speech about how no one person - not ANY person who is elected - can do anything at all without bipartisan discussion.

It's been going on for 3 generations now...

Much longer than that... more like 3 centuries... or, six... nine? twelve? I've lost count.

The gargantuan level of infrastructure changes necessary for even one of his grand ideas is staggering.

Consider his Medicare for All proposal. On the whole, it's a great idea if we were to create a healthcare system from scratch. But we have a massive interconnected pharma-industrial-medical complex comprised of an insane mixture of different styles of healthcare facilities from non-profit stand alone specialty hospitals to massively profitable mega-hospital chains.

The entire engine of that pharma-industrial-medical complex is fueled by a monstrous health insurance industry with a similar wild range of company types. In order for his plan to work, and realize the savings he spouts, the entire system would need to be upended and massive companies which are blue-chip stocks in millions of people's 401k plans would need to go away. For-profit hospital mega-chains would need to become not-for-profit, eliminating more money from people's retirement plans.

Great idea, not viable. It would rend the economy into a tatters worse than the great depression.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

In order for his plan to work, and realize the savings he spouts, the entire system would need to be upended and massive companies which are blue-chip stocks in millions of people's 401k plans would need to go away. For-profit hospital mega-chains would need to become not-for-profit, eliminating more money from people's retirement plans.

Great idea, not viable. It would rend the economy into a tatters worse than the great depression.

I totally get what you're saying....
but in my opinion, "insurance" should never have gone onto Wall Street - gone 'public' in terms of 'shareholders make money via Wall Street'.

Insurance is supposed to be about everyone pitching in, and when someone suffers a catastrophe, their needs are covered out of the pooled money. It should never have become a "for-profit" business.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sure. But just about every retirement plan in the country contains stock from at least three of these huge insurance companies:
Berkshire Hathaway
Allianz
American Intl Group Inc
AIG
AIA Group Ltd
Prudential Plc
Metlife Inc
AXA
Zurich Financial Services AG
ACE Limited
Prudential Financial Inc

It's too late.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Too late for what? To freeze everything just as it is, (meaning the people with stock simply keep what their portfolio holds at the moment) and make the companies all go back to square one?
....I don't see any real issue with that....

the stockholders get whatever it says on their statements as of that moment, and then it's over.



The money has been distributed amongst the 'holders', and after that the companies' assets are forfeited....they have to rebuild.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That idea would shutter the companies, the value would be zero on said statements.

Tens of thousands of people would suddenly be out of work.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheTory

I totally disagree.
It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure all of us are okay.

And that's a moral issue, like I said, not a government one. That means you do it yourself. Teach your children that lesson, start preaching it, write books about it, whatever you feel. Be a living example. But it isn't something that can be taught by legislature and imposed by Bureaucracy.

a reply to: seeker1963


First "intelligent" thing? Sweden does not have a president... They have king and prime minister runs the government. The potential president of one of the largest economies in the world should know such facts.

I'm amused, by ATS members always going on about the "elite". Then want to vote for trump. The most elitist candidate on offer. The embodiement of elitism. Elitism personified people believe his BS like its gospel. Really believe he's going to make America great again like in?