DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Hopefuls

The run for President of these United States continues to heat up with Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic hopefuls. Her opponent is Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders questions morality of US economy

Every candidate in the 2016 presidential race talks about responding to income inequality and stagnant middle class wages. No one else talks about it like Bernie Sanders.

The self-described socialist senator from Vermont wants to reverse the "massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent." The 90 percent top income tax rates America had during the 1950s might not be too high, he said.
He wants big Wall Street banks broken up. He's willing to accept slower economic growth in return for what he'd consider a more equitable distribution of income.

"The issue we're dealing with is actually the struggle to rebuild American democracy," Sanders said in an interview at a Capitol Hill bistro. "Economically, over the last 40 years, we've seen a middle class in this country disappearing.

"Ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today goes to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think this is the kind of economy we should have. Do we think it's moral?"

Sanders acknowledges the long odds against his attempt to upset former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and capture the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. But he's interested in advancing his ideas even if he doesn't win. And at a moment when rank-and-file Democratic voters are gravitating toward more robust economic populism, Clinton's campaign is watching his efforts closely.
The one-time mayor of Burlington decided months ago to pursue a campaign only if he had confidence that it wouldn't be a counter-productive flop. "If I do badly, and I don't run a good campaign, and we don't get our message out, and we don't bring people together, it reflects not just on me, but on the ideas that I'm talking about," Sanders said.
But he added: "A couple months ago, I was in California, a beautiful sunny day. We had 500 people coming out at a union hall. I went to Austin, Texas—we had about 600 people coming out. I was in Las Vegas—we had 300 people coming out. Went to Chicago—we had 400 people. So I am sensing that based on that trip and trips that I made to Iowa, New Hampshire, that there is more disconnect and more anger at the establishment—the corporate establishment, the political establishment, the media establishment."

And of course no one represents the Democratic political establishment more than Clinton. Where she moves cautiously to consolidate support, he speaks with abandon to the visceral concerns of Democratic liberals about some titans of business and finance.

"These people are so greedy, they're so out of touch with reality," he said. "They think they own the world. ... I'm sorry to have to tell them, they live in the United States, they benefit from the United States, we have kids who are hungry in this country. We have people who are working two, three, four jobs, who can't send their kids to college.

"Sorry, you're all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes," he asserted. "If my memory is correct, when radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent."
Sanders doesn't condemn Clinton for having earned vast sums delivering speeches since leaving the State Department. But he cautions that it could leave her insensitive to the concerns of working-class voters.
"When you hustle money like that, you don't sit in restaurants like this," he said. "You sit in restaurants where you're spending—I don't know what they spend—hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That's the world that you're accustomed to, and that's the world view that you adopt. You're not worrying about a kid three blocks away from here whose mom can't afford to feed him.

"So yes, I think that can isolate you—that type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the world."

Invoking the concerns of Pope Francis, Sanders blistered what he called "a casino-type capitalism, which is out of control, where the people on top have lost any sense of responsibility for the rest of the society." He praised the contributions made by innovators and entrepreneurs but said in some sectors, such as banking, the biggest firms had amassed so much market power to inhibit competition. One top priority, he noted, would be changing the campaign finance system that had developed since the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court freed wealthy donors of some constraints previously in effect.
"I fully concede that I get into this race as a major underdog," Sanders responded when asked if his campaign might be futile. "Hillary Clinton is known by 95 percent of the American people. ... And clearly, in terms of money, I will be very, very, very heavily outspent."
But "don't underestimate me," he said. "We're going to do better than people think. And I think we've got a shot to win this thing."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102694355

You could easily replace the word "firms" with "politicians" here too.

IF Bernie Sanders could actually implement his ideas after getting elected, he would be the ideal candidate for what this country needs. He is very in touch with the issues regarding the middle class and poor in this country.

The problem he has is the same as Ron Paul, the ignorant selfish sheep that run the Republican party these days won't allow any of these things. If it doesn't make the rich richer, then the republicans are not for it. This new republican/tea party incarnation is certainly not the Republican party I once cared for.

Not sure who the republicans will put up but I don't see Bernie beating Hillary. Although, I would vote for him if he does.

So far Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has come out and actually said anything informative. Hillary Clinton is busy "meeting people and learning" while the Republicans are giving us bits and pieces of information. As things develop, I will try to update this thread.

There is so much anti hillary sentiment out there that if she ever wins I know the system is completely rigged. I want nothing to do with someone so morally bankrupt.

Whether deomcrat or republican they better offer someone who knows how to run a business and knows how to create jobs. I might be willing to vote for trump at thsi point since he support having tarrifs again on imports from china, japan, and mexico.

I have always favored Governors as Presidents due to the fact they have experience running a State.

I agree, it's building on that executive experience. The only presidents I preferred over governors are generals, but I don't think we'll ever have one again...

If this statement were even close to true, Obama would never have been re-elected.

Can somebody explain something to me about Bobby Jindal?

why is he so ashamed of being Hindi?

This guy had a typical Hindi last name, changed it to the whitest name imaginable, and converted to christianity,

man......

Perhaps he saw the light.

ok...

so why the name change?

From what I know he adopted Bobby when he was in elementary school, probably just to fit in with other kids in Baton Rouge..

His conversion to Christianity was in high school.. so it's not like either was politically motivated.

I don't think either necessarily mean he was ashamed to be Hindi...

Because Bubba had already been taken by all the other boys in school.

i certainly hope you're right DC.

it was just odd to me. Thats all.

Because he's a politician and one who wishes to be accepted by conservatives. A Hindu name won't fly.

That would be a reasonable argument as long as you accept that he knew he was going to be a conservative politician when he was about 7 years old... which is when he changed his name to Bobby.

Hey, it's a possibility! lol

Is there going to be an option on the ballot to just stick a fork in your eye? This might just be the most uninspiring lineup of presidential candidates I've seen in my young lifetime.

Oh come on now, things are just getting started and there are like elevendy hunderd candidates so far.

There's gotta be someone you can agree with.

Successfully. that should've been added in your sentence.

being just a governor, and being a good governor, are two different things,

No. Governors have executive experience period.

Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

Walker did a fine job in Wisconsin when you consider the fact that Libs and the Unions made him run for the office 4 times because they kept tying him up with attempted recalls. Recalls that he defeated each time while running his state.

Even though you don't like him, he still has the experience.

yea...no.

I have experience working on a Farm. doesn't mean i'm any good at it.

I've been driving since i was 16. doesn't make me a good driver.

Working on a farm. I, too, have experience working on a farm. I have no experience "running" a farm. I would probably fail running a farm.

A better example would be you have experience working for the gov't. As a soldier. That doesn't mean you can RUN the government. See the difference? A governor has run a state. That puts him/her head and shoulders above someone that has worked for a state: title clerk, driving a snow plow, etc. Can you see the difference?


More than likely it makes you a better driver than a 16 year old. (at least, you'd BETTER be a better driver than a 16 year old.)

Experience helps. It's not the end all be all - but it certainly helps. Wouldn't you agree?

On a different note - if our gov't. was looking for donations from foreign countries - Hillary would be the best suited for president. She, and bill, seem masterful at that.

good point.

however, are we in agreement that just because you're a governor doesn't make you a good one?

for instance. Scott Walker has experience as a governor. he know's what it takes to run the state, but that doesn't mean he HAS what it takes to run the state.

Sure.

I'm not a Walker fan, or a hater. But I guarantee he has more experience running a gov't. than........oh......our current president.

That doesn't make him "good".

I'd rather have someone that was a good governor run for president, as opposed to someone who is running on name recognition alone. (hillary, jeb) How Jeb ran florida I do not know. Good, bad, indifferent - I don't know. His last name has helped him.

Hillary, on the other hand - she's been a sham since she was a governor's wife. She's been a failure that, luckily, was married to a success - and she's all in on riding Bill's coat tails.

i still wouldn't even consider voting for walker.

i posted the side by side comparison of him and the governor of Minn. before. it's a joke.

i'm not gonna trust somebody with an entire country when they can't even do their job correctly.

I like that bernie sanders dude. i like rand paul too. i like hillary.

but some of these clowns running have no shot. most of these guys are way too extreme.

And then you say:


Honestly?

to me she's done her job correctly.

i liked her a secretary of state.

they keep making panels for benghazi, and keep finding nothing.

in this country it's innocent until proven guilty.

sorry if i apply that to everybody, not just who i pick and choose.

No need to apologize.

If every convicted person were allowed to "erase" all evidence, we'd have no criminals, right?

What if you were investigated by the irs - like, say, Sharpton........and then bam, all of a sudden a fire burned up all your records?

What if.....say, someone knew something about you.....and then it turns out he "committed suicide" shortly before he was going to be questioned?

What if you were the head of state and lo and behold, your "foundation" got huge money donations and it just so happens the donor countries got benefits.

What about being "dead broke" when leaving the whitehouse - yet still maintaining a home in DC and new york?

What about all the shady deals she's involved in?

That doesn't matter to you?

Sorry bud - I don't need to see the fire before I call the fire department. The smoke is enough for me.

I didn't need to have the guy break down my door before I called the cops - his beating on it was enough for me.

UPDATE...

From the Republicans as of 5/30/15

There was Santorum and Rubio, Paul and Pataki;
Huckabee and Fiorina, Cruz and Carson;
Maybe Trump and Graham, Perry and Christie;
Probably Jindal and Kasich, Walker and Gilmore;
Even Ehrlich and King and Bush.
But who will we call... the most famous reindeer of all...

so this is a real superPAC ad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qy-4CBBZo

And the results...

EXCLUSIVE — RAND PAUL SLAMS ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, DECLARES VICTORY OVER NSA

Late Sunday the National Security Agency (NSA) shut down its bulk data collection program as the PATRIOT Act expired thanks to Paul’s efforts. He tells Breitbart News exclusively that “we’re excited by the fact that the battle has been won.”

“The president has been told in no uncertain terms—and by the end of the week this will be in writing—that he can no longer illegally collect all of Americans’ phone records and keep them in Utah,” Paul said.

I think this is a big rebuke for the president. The courts told him it was illegal and he just kept doing it anyway. I think most Americans, particularly Republicans, don’t trust this president. This is the same president who went after Tea Party groups and went after religious liberty and religious groups. I don’t understand why some of the big government Republicans up here don’t get it because most Republicans I meet across the country don’t want this president to have access to all their phone records.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ion-shuts-down/

I'm not feeling the double standard here.

On on hand I'm glad rand Paul won this. On the other, it was the GOP a that started this in the first place.

Wrong...

Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.

Never underestimate a politician's desire to grab more power.

Who was the majority and the president in power when it got passed?

It was the Republicans, and it was a massive overreach of power.

I'm hitching myself to Bernie Sanders. There's no way he gets the nomination, but I adore what he stands for.

Of course you love The self-described SOCIALIST senator from Vermont.
You didn't even have to post that info.

Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House.

Wow! I don't remember there only being 67 Democrats at the time.