Feeling the Bern
We are little more than 5 days (Feb 3) from the Iowa Caucuses. According to a new Poll released Saturday, Bernie Sanders now leads the democratic field in Iowa. Sanders gets 25% of likely Democratic caucus-goers according to the New York Times Upshot/Siena College Survey:
https://scri.siena.edu/2020/01/25/ny-times-siena-college-poll-of-likely-iowa-democratic-caucus-participants/
The rise of Sanders, an extreme left wing candidate who doesn't even consider himself a democrat, has raised concerns among many democrats including former president Barak Obama:
"Publicly, he has been clear that he won’t intervene in the primary for or against a candidate, unless he believed there was some egregious attack. “I can't even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something,” said a close adviser. Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly and to unite the party when the nominee is clear. There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/26/barack-obama-2020-democrats-candidates-biden-073025
Do the democrats believe that if Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee he will be un-electable in a general election? What about the democratic party itself? He obviously has a grip on the young white progressives who form the hard left wing of the party. Can the moderate elements of the party prevail? Or will the DNC screw Bernie again? Already we had the sad spectacle of Liz Warren claiming that Sanders told her in a private conversation that "a woman couldn't win the 2020 election"!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-woman-cant-win_n_5e1cb47bc5b650c621e32798 . Imagine! In a private conversation, no less!
To top that off, CNN tried to back up Warren:
"On Monday, CNN reported that Sanders had told Warren during a closed-door meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency. CNN’s anonymous sources for the story were “ two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter ” and “two people familiar with the meeting.” Translation: The Warren campaign fed the story to CNN."
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-eager-to-back-elizabeth-warren-in-dispute-first-reported-by-cnn
There have also been statements from Hillary Clinton (the party sage/stooge) like this one:
“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,” Clinton said. “He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479268-hillary-clinton-tears-open-wound-with-her-attack-on-sanders
Clearly, the democrats and their allies in the media are at it again. They got to take out Bernie because Bernie is too extreme for the general population, or so they think. It reminds me of the Republican "Never Trumpers " who thought they were doomed if Donald Trump won the nomination. I wonder if it's the same thing. Can forces within the democratic party get away with what the DNC pulled last time? It is after all the party of dirty tricks and the well plotted hoax. I have a hunch that ridiculous claim by Warren was just the first shot across the bow. Somebody or something, real or imagined, might be dredged from Bernie's past. Maybe Bernie's demise will come in a more subtle way with some political stunt via delegates?
I wonder what fate awaits Bernie?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
If Sanders gets the nomination you'll be calling him a communist within 5 minutes.
Spare us this baloney Vic.
-
I think Sanders could beat Trump, but it is risky. It would depend on a turnout by young voters that we havent seen in a long time , if ever.
I dont think that could be ruled out, at all, but it is a big risk when a more moderate Democrat will likely beat Trump fairly easily.
What if I call him a Socialist?
I dont think that could be ruled out, at all, but it is a big risk when a more moderate Democrat will likely beat Trump fairly easily.
So, do you favor removing Sanders?
Removing him from what?
Sanders is the leader of a movement, a Moses. Because of the need to defeat the travesty in the white house, this year, Sanders may not get to the promised land in 2020. But his ideas about income inequality will take wide hold before too long, and he will go down in history along side the great populists and those who fought for the little guy. Sanders is a historical figure.
I assume with white young adults living in their parents homes
The Hillary school of politics.
Insure the appearance of deniability .... have the DNC do your dirty work for you.
Too bad it didn't work for the Hill, maybe it will for shotgun Joe.
"Alzheimer Joe" !
WHAAAAT ?
How will taxing billionaires bankrupt the country?Will they all hide their money under their pillow and move to Tibet?
I think Sander's progressive liberal socialist Democrat ideology, if he were to somehow get elected, would ultimately do far more damage to this country than anything the left has accused Trump of.
No doubt about that but don't worry. They'd still blame Trump or perhaps Dubya as well .... such is the dementia that is the progressive left wing these days ....
"Bernie Sanders was bare-chested, towel-draped, sitting at a table lined with vodka bottles, as he sang “This Land Is Your Land” to his hosts in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1988.
The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called “a very strange honeymoon,” an official 10-day visit to the communist country, and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.
“Let’s take the strengths of both systems,” he said upon completing the trip. “Let’s learn from each other.”
RUSSIAN COLLUSION ?
I see no way that the electorate would choose Sanders over Trump as long as the economy remains good. That would go against one of the most solid factors of electoral dynamics: voting to continue with the PotUS presiding over good times.
Sanders would be like pouring cold water onto a fire. He is business unfriendly and I am confident most every CEO would directly move to a conservative (gird your loins) strategy. That is, they would cease presumptive growth plans and keep the business on a very tight leash in anticipation of increased costs from taxation, regulations and reduced demand from psychological factors resulting from a precipitous drop in the stock market and a rise in unemployment.
Same with Warren by the way.
Biden (and especially Bloomberg) have the best shots of getting elected, but they need to convince the people that (assuming the economy remains good) voting for them will not upset the good times. Not sure how that is accomplished, but it is critical to do so.
IMO.
Oh I agree that people who like the current system of inequality would not vote for Sanders, unless they realistically see having Trump re-elected would be worse than an 80 year old who likely wont have any legislative sway for his entire time in office.
But Sanders theory of the game is that there are untold millions of young people who dont normally vote that will vote for him, enough to make up for Democratic or independent defectors. I dont think that is far fetched at all, polls regularly show Sanders beating or tied with Trump.
Bernie Sanders will take Donald Trump apart. He knows how to rhetorically tie Trump to the inequality and the corruption issues, and he is fearless.
Trump will HATE to run against Sanders.
I'd have to vote for Sanders if he were the nominee, but I'd have to hold my nose to do it. There is no way I could vote for Trump; I'd have to hope that Congress would keep Bernie from doing too many insane things.
I don't think enough others would feel the same way, though. I think a Sanders nomination would guarantee a Trump win.
I sincerely hope Sanders doesn't get the nomination.
I'd have to hold my nose as well while I voted for him.
Everyone IS Guaranteed an EQUAL chance. It's the "Results" that aren't Guaranteed !
It's ONLY an "Individuals effort" that can "Guarantee" the "Result".
Is it the "Results" that bother you ?
How is everyone guaranteed an equal chance when the playing field is not level?
How is it Not ?
"FIRST IMPRESSIONS"....are EVERYTHING.....right ?
Nobody likes him, everybody hates him, might as well go eat worms .....
It's true. Sanders is a left wing Trump and as such might do better than people think.
For your review I present the democratic party of 2020
Rules of civility apply
Trump is completely off topic
How can Trump be completely off topic when Sanders is running against Trump for Trump's job? AND the Democratic candidates are being evaluated for how they are expected to do against Trump.
By the way Vic, you mention Trump in your article. That has always been taken as opening the door to a subject on this forum.
I'm still working on how my opening statement wound up being the # 3 comment?
John's first comment shows as 32 minutes ago ... your first comment shows as 31 minutes. Must just be a timing thing.
Looks like comments 1 and 2 were posted at least 1 millisecond before yours. All three show 35 minutes ago (at the present time).
I assume it was. John typed his first comment faster than I typed mine. I did adjust mine a bit, but no more than a minute after I posted the article, which leads me to believe that some here are speed readers or maybe the article wasn't read.
I did change what my opening comment would be, so that would be part of it to be fair.
That's called schiffing - you already know what you're going to say but you have to wait to weave it into a stray story.
From here on taking a dump will be known as taking a tRump
The Bernie BURN, BURN, Burn ( 2:29 into the Vid.}
" Bernie Doesn't know what his "Plans" will cost. He SAID SO !
Thus …… He will even "BURN" the folks that will vote for him.
And he seems totally unconcerned with the potential costs.
Not an " Other people person "....for sure !
He Promised to "Raise Taxes", and Promised "Jobs will be lost" !
I'd vote for him.
I take it, you are not one of his supporters?
Hell, no. He's way too far left for me. What he proposes simply isn't realistic. And - he's way too old.
Valid points. Who is your man/woman at this point?
Income inequality like we have now is not sustainable. Within the lifetimes of people who are middle aged or younger today something will be done about it. A good first step would be clawing back some of the profits of banks and companies that make their money solely off financial manipulation, through a transaction tax. There will also be a wealth tax and an additional tax on incomes over ,say 5 million ,a year. The money gained by these taxes and outcomes can be used to benefit the "99%". These ideas are NOT unAmerican and they will happen at some point.
If Biden can get through Iowa and New Hampshire without the media declaring him a loser he will be the likely nominee. Its ridiculous that candidates will be declared dead because they didnt do well in the first two primaries, but that is the mess the media have created for us over time.
I never watch the primary debates (or TV in general)... from what I've been reading, I guess Biden sounds the most sane, and at this point I would love to have an adult in the Oval Office who would respect its dignity. But he's also too old. I think Warren is also too far left, btw. I'm not too thrilled with any of the candidates, to be honest. I'll pay more attention as the field narrows; as an independent, I can vote in either primary (but not both). Which one I pick this year will depend on whether I want a say more in the presidential nominee or the local nominees.
My presidential vote doesn't really count anyway. I live in WV, and Trump will take WV no matter what. I try to focus more on the candidates in my local elections, where my vote DOES make a difference (some of our local elections have been decided by tens of votes) and directly impacts my day to day life.
Such as last time around, I voted for the Republican candidate for governor, because the Democratic candidate was a corrupt POS who owed millions in back taxes and in fines for safety violations at his family's coal mines. But guess what - the Democrat won (and promptly switched parties for something like the third time). You'd think all the folks in coal country would have thought about how badly he has screwed them, but nope.
I realize that in WV our Democratic candidates are generally Republicans in denial, but I couldn't understand how the voters would choose Jim Justice as one of the few Democrats elected, when he was so much more corrupt than his Republican opponent. Voters make no sense to me.
They already put a transaction tax in place. As an investor, pretty much all my retirement income is from "financial manipulation."
I don't hate the wealthy. Warren Buffet has made me a lot of money over the years. I'm also skeptical of a wealth tax. One option might be to take away the 20% capital gains tax and instead, tax capital gains at the person's regular income tax rate. That way, we get the taxes when the assets are sold. Until they are sold, they are just paper wealth and really, who is going to determine what the actual value is each year? Markets fluctuate wildly. Wealth tax seems impractical to me.
He's holding his breath until the South Carolina Primary (the 4th primary on Feb 29), at which point he can climb up on a stage and scream "They're going to put you all back in chains!"
The concept behind the wealth tax us simple. After a certain threshold you have too much money and the society has a right to limit that. The proposed threshold is 50 million. THE WEALTH TAX DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR FIRST 50 MILLION, and after that the threshold would be 2 percent , or one million per year.
We should have it in place right now, but it will happen eventually, and hurt absolutely no one.
I don't feel it's up to me to determine how much money someone else "should" have. And again - how do we determine the value of the wealth, since paper wealth fluctuates so much?
So if someone had all the money that would be fine because you dont have the right to say that is wrong?
Of course society has the right.
And most privately owned businesses that employ more than two hundred people have a valuation of over fifty million. It makes no sense hurt them and make them less competitive in the global marketplace or harm those that are most beneficial to the nations economy.
How can someone have ALL the money? That makes no sense. I work and earn money, and I invest, so how can someone else have all the money?
I grew up in Maryland. Actually, Hogan is very popular across the board there, but I see what you're saying. But I don't feel like moving to a swing state just so my vote matters more; I love being 5 minutes away from kayaking and hiking, 90 minutes away from 3 major airports, and having an affordable house that I could afford to pay off several years ago!
True. Besides, until the asset is sold or inherited, its value is ethereal. Hell, if you get 3 appraisals for something, they could be all over the map.
Do you also hate homeowners? After all, those people whose houses went way up in value didn't actually do anything to earn that money. It was all financial manipulation.
You are an interesting cat kat.
Some here have good minds but you actually use yours.
I get that. But most of those who support a wealth tax seem to consider any income gained via investments and such to be up for grabs, as it is "unearned." And they also feel they get to decide how much money someone else is allowed to have. It seems based more on hatred of the wealthy than anything else.
I'd like to see financial education in every grade level. That would help. I see friends who complain that they'll never be able to invest as I did ... well, I started investing in my mid-20s when I didn't make much money, but forced myself to start with just one percent, and then increased it every time I got a raise. And I went out for a drink maybe once a month, while these younger friends go to the bar all the time. That's $100 or $200 a month easily (often more - $20 per night at the bar is almost $600 a month) which they could invest instead. But they don't want to hear about it.
I just don't think it would be as detrimental as some seem to say.
I am not against wealth, I am against the divide that keeps growing. Not sustainable imo.
I don't think a higher tax rate would be deciding how much one could have.
I am not for a 'wealth tax', I am for stopping the lowering of taxes all around. Especially in the higher brackets.
There will always be some type of divide yet the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is at an all time high. That cannot be denied.
And that's one of my main problems with it. It's not yet income - and taxing it before it becomes income poses major issues. Just think of the market manipulations every year when the wealthy are required to divest some of their holdings ... beyond just your example.
Imo a lot of things have contributed to it including having the congress people in the pockets of the wealthy. Decline of unions etc.
May have always been to a point but not at the extent it is now.
Never been a Bernie fan.
Weren't they known as robber barons?
Im not sure how your story about how you saved and invested money when others you knew couldnt manage it demonstrates that investment income is "earned".
We know for a fact that in the past few decades many companies harm their workers in order to maintain or grow stock price, ie, provide income for their investors.
Take the most simple example, getting "lean and mean" as a company. Make the work force smaller, force the workers to produce more per "unit" of time or space, delay or prevent raises, cut back on safety precautions. Or move the company overseas altogether. All to make more for investors, and managers, ceo's and owners.
I am not against people making money off investments, but it should be after the people who make the product are paid properly, not before.
Irrelevant.
The purpose of a wealth tax, as described by the politicians that have proposed it, is to lessen income inequality. Rich people have an outsized effect on the way the society, and politics, is run. They "buy" political influence .
Yes, the purpose of a wealth tax is to make the very wealthy a little less wealthy, therefore it doesnt matter a bit that the wealth has already been taxed. Yes, the wealth tax IS another tax. So what?
People who have 50 million dollars are well able to rebate some of that ( a very small amount) to the society without there being any harm to themselves whatsoever.
That is the essence of the wealth tax. It does not kick in until the 50 million dollar threshold, so only the 51st million is taxed. Boo hoo.
they will probably rig the system against him again. Democrats don't trust Democrats to vote how they are told.
Remember what Schiff told us? They don't trust voters at all!
Yup - sez it all.
Correct! That was the statement!
Nobody has mentioned Bloomberg. He's been sneaking up in Pennsylvania TV ads - no real message beyond a pissy sort of 'he's the only candidate who can beat Trump. What's scary about him is developing into a perceived alternative moderate.
Nobody has mentioned Bloomberg. He's been sneaking up in Pennsylvania TV ads - no real message beyond a pissy sort of 'he's the only candidate who can beat Trump. What's scary about him is developing into a perceived alternative moderate.