Both happy and sad Sanders is gaining on Clinton

Politically I think Sanders is a much weaker general candidate if he were to win, and even if he doesn't he keeps forcing Clinton left which also hurts her.

BUT, the fact that people are willing to vote for an admitted socialist is deeply troubling.

This country has lost its way. The focus on "equality" and "social justice" sounds great, but was I the only person who read Animal Farm in school?

let's be clear: socialism is the opposite of the reasons this nation was founded. "social justice" is focused on outcome, not opportunity, on keeping all the trees in the forest the same versus letting each person pursue their goals their way and be responsible for the results.

Moreover, it centralizes power, whereas democratic capitalism decentralizes power, which returns us to the state approved system that our forefathers came here to escape.

There has from the beginning been a percentage of people in this country that want us to be like Europe. From the Loyalists who wanted to stay part of England through to today, it seems about one third of this country is dead set on dragging us back to European ideals of social engineering, whether it was the Divine Right of Kings 250 years ago or the equally engineered and state controlled socialism of today.

I guess this isn't worse than McGovern, but it's still depressing. But strategically it's good b/c going too far left or right is a sure way to not win an election, and Bernie is forcing Clinton to be way far left.


I will also add that if the GOP wasn't a rudderless ship of establishment fat white guys they'd see the huge opportunity to appeal to a LOT of Democrats out there who are not leftists. There are still a number of blue collar middle of the road Americans who are registered and think of themselves as Democrats, but since Obama won the national DNC has become as leftist and extreme as it ever was during the McGovern years.

There are a lot of FDR type Democrats out there who believe in some kind of safety net but don't believe in "from each according to ability, to each according to need" being enforced at the point of a gun.

in fact the only thing that keeps the GOP from expanding is finding a compromise on social issues, b/c there are a lot of fairly libertarian folks out there and traditional Democrats who are being marginalized by the left. Plenty of folks to win elections if we can find a way to work together.

Theologically, social conservatives are way off base. What people do behind closed doors God can deal with it. The law can't prohibit it in any meaningful way. That's why, biblically, Law was replaced with Grace. It is human nature to be drawn to that which is prohibited. Wet Paint, Do Not Touch. Under Grace it's just wet paint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

Theologically, social conservatives are way off base. What people do behind closed doors God can deal with it. The law can't prohibit it in any meaningful way. That's why, biblically, Law was replaced with Grace. It is human nature to be drawn to that which is prohibited. Wet Paint, Do Not Touch. Under Grace it's just wet paint.

---

The compromise the GOP needs to make is IMO simple. It wont' satisfy everyone, but it's the best and clearest option available.

Reintroduce federalism, and make it clear that at the federal level the GOP will not pursue social issues through legal action, but will leave those decisions to the states.

Historically that's how it worked. FWIW "in God we Trust" didnt' appear on currency and wasn't adopted as a national motto till 1956. It had appeared on some minted coins prior to that point but was not a standard. Now we have always opened Congress with a prayer going back to before Congress. But by and large there was little federal legislating of any kind on social issues.

The role of the state is to treat everyone equal and to honestly treat them as little as possible in the first place. Then let people pursue those issues at a state and local level.

that should be the official GOP platform. let communities do as they please and let it be decided in the courts just like gay marriage.

that allows the GOP to attract a large group of Americans who are fiscally conservative and libertarian but socially liberal (which is also consistent with libertarianism). There's no real home for those folks and they are a huge group.

Then we can advance on major issues like lowering the level of government, cutting regulation and returning to a more capitalistic economy with expanded economic freedom and expanded opportunity, while at the federal level remaining neutral on social issues.

It does the most good for the most of us on here, whether socially conservative or liberal. Let's move forward on our common ground WITHOUT pushing anyone backward on their views on social issues. No one has to compromise on them, just focus those debates at the local and regional level where they historically belong.

The common perception is that each party has one developing and basic ideological dogma. One appears to want to control our country, and the other wants to control and dictate to the whole world.

Truth be known..both are destined to fail. It's how they will fail that should concern the America people.

There's a way that seems right to mankind, but the end of it is certain destruction. We are at that unavoidable point in history my friends..so place no faith in either.

No matter how we try, we don't control our own political or social destiny.

I'll vote for peace, whatever the sacrifice and regardless of party.

The most salient point about the op is the last portion. The unyielding stand on social issues by the religious right is killing the party. Gay marriage should not even be an issue. Republicans shout about wanting goverment out of people's lives so do as you preach and stay out of others lives! Instead they will stay out of your life so long as you believe as they do. Well that isn't much of a challenge, is it? Now I understand the abortion arguments and that won't change. In healthcare, they need to quit acrring like babies. Stomping your feet and holding your breath til you pass out does no good. But mostly stay out of the social issues. They are LOSERS. Focus on what you can win and unite

Sanders is gaining because the Republican party has moved SO far to the right, that you basically have Far Right and everyone else. It is rather unfortunate because I remember the Republican party of compassion.

See this from the debate between Reagan and Bush in 1980. They are addressing illegal immigration and one thing that strikes me is see their compassion. There is no hatred for the immigrants, there is no fear-mongering, no implications that the illegal immigrants will make the country worse, are more violent, etc. Just basic human compassion. There is anger at the system being broken, but not at the people coming here.
https://www.facebook.com/chroncom/vi...4528827472814/

Sorry for the facebook link, but this is where I saw it.

Basically, when the "social conservatives" took over the Republican party it lost its compassion. Combined with the terrorist issues, the party lost its head. It lost the side that tempered the zealous fundamental side, calling them RINOs. It treats compassion as weakness. Compromise is replaced with fundamental rigidness. Results are replaced with idealism.

People see what has happened to society, with skyrocketing medical cost and housing costs. Wages have increased but any increase that they have received have been dramatically outstripped by the increase in expenses. New students have to suffer the cost of college costs that have skyrocketed and shackle them with debt. For example, before 1980 you could work a summer break (at minimum wage) and pay for your tuition. Even thought the 90s, it was around 30 weeks in the year to pay for tuition. Difficult but not impossible if you are careful. Current average tuition to a public school requires that you work 50-56 weeks in the year to pay for tuition. This makes paying for school without loans, virtually impossible. This doesn't even being to address the way the cost of books has risen. Combine that with the fact that a Bachelors Degree is the bare MINIMUM to get a job anymore and we have a cluster-**** of a situation and this is just looking at college alone. As for those that talk about kids going to Cancun or whatever. I know that when I was in school, the kids going to Cancun were NOT the ones taking loans. It was the ones that had mommy and daddy paying for school that went there.

Quite simply, there are some huge issues to be addressed and the Republican party is completely ignoring them. Things like the lack of mid-level jobs, business tax cuts haven't worked because the businesses are using their profits to reward their investors. There is nothing inherently wrong with this (in fact I support rewarding investors) but the fact is that it isn't doing what was intended, creating solid mmid-level jobs. People like me have jobs because I am in a specialist field. Others, not so much. Outsourcing has evaporated industries and forced down wages. While household wages have risen, often it is at the expense of requiring two earner households. Which actually ends up being barely an increase after childcare costs are factored in.

The answers aren't easy but the Republicans don't even attempt to approach it with anything but tax cuts. There needs to be another answer but the republicans aren't giving it. This is why Sanders is gaining, he might not be giving the RIGHT or even a workable answer but at least he is giving AN answer to the problems. Something that gives people hope and changes the status quo. What will the Republican party come up with? I would like to know. They NEED to address these problems instead of continuously saying but but but aboriton....but but but gay marriage. Ignoring the issues that actually affect citizens on a day to day basis.


As an semi-related aside, everyone is worried about AI becoming malevolent but that is the wrong thing to worry about. The huge explosion of AI has the potential to make the job losses that we have seen due to outsourcinng look like childs play. AI is reaching a point within the next two decades that you will see entire industries of jobs disappear. The first will be truck drivers, this is already starting. The next one, that will be coming VERY soon is researchers. You are already seeing research assistants being replaced by robotic systems. Unlike the past, where we saw industries mature and morph into new industries, we are seeing industries disappear being replaced by NOTHING. Where a lab used to require 1 PI and 10 RAs, robotic labs now at most requires 1PI and 1 or 2 RAs. The rest of those jobs didn't go elsewhere they are just gone. It is clear in the wages that RAs are now paid. People with high scientific knowledge and research experience making $32K a year. Factory workers are replaced by robots, transportation industry is being replaced by robots, scientists and researchers will be replaced by almost nothing. While this is not an issue yet, it is coming VERY damn soon. Do we revert to a Feudal-esque society where a limited few control the paying jobs and the rest barely get by? Who knows.

I want to see the Republican Party succeed but they have stacked the deck against themselves and are fundamentally ignoring major issues. They are trading in fear and big business and ignoring what will help them sweep elections. As another side, people wouldn't care about minimum wage if they didn't see that they were one step away from being on minimum wage.

Currently, there is an idea vacuum and it is allowing ideas like socialism to take a foothold. There is NOBODY to blame but the Republican party themselves.

So Sanders is gaining among Democrats, in a Democratic vote, over Hillary, b/c of the GOP being too conservative?

Nope, not buying it. Not even close.

I wont' defend the GOP, though I think most of your points can apply to any political party (none of them have AI or even a real plan for health care costs on the table), but this is Sanders v. Hillary right now.

For them to go to Sanders means that either they are a) buying Sanders positions over Hillary, or b) they are voting against Hillary for some non-policy reason.

FWIW, socialism nor Sanders has any answers for anything you listed either. Well they have promises, and I agree the GOP doesn't address those issues well at all right now, but the only Democratic answer for health care or tuition costs or jobs is to borrow more money from our future and redistribute it now.

No one has seriously tried to address health care costs, and certainly not address college tuition going nuts. Subsidies isn't an answer, though I'm sure many Americans can't get that concept. I agree the GOP hasn't even suggested that much, but in truth many won't like the real answers and solutions.

But the GOP's struggles doesnt' explain Sanders gaining on Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

So Sanders is gaining among Democrats, in a Democratic vote, over Hillary, b/c of the GOP being too conservative?

Nope, not buying it. Not even close.

I wont' defend the GOP, though I think most of your points can apply to any political party (none of them have AI or even a real plan for health care costs on the table), but this is Sanders v. Hillary right now.

For them to go to Sanders means that either they are a) buying Sanders positions over Hillary, or b) they are voting against Hillary for some non-policy reason.

FWIW, socialism nor Sanders has any answers for anything you listed either. Well they have promises, and I agree the GOP doesn't address those issues well at all right now, but the only Democratic answer for health care or tuition costs or jobs is to borrow more money from our future and redistribute it now.

No one has seriously tried to address health care costs, and certainly not address college tuition going nuts. Subsidies isn't an answer, though I'm sure many Americans can't get that concept. I agree the GOP hasn't even suggested that much, but in truth many won't like the real answers and solutions.

But the GOP's struggles doesnt' explain Sanders gaining on Hillary.

---

I didn't know this discussion was limited to Democrats. I know a good number of moderate Republicans that are interested in him due to the current people that the Republicans are supporting.

I never said the answers he was giving are the RIGHT answer. I don't believe they are, but at least he is in a way acknowledging there is a problem. Saying there is a problem and giving a wrong answer is better than acting as if there is no problem at all. Which is what the Republicans are doing by focusing on illegal immigration, abortion and gay marriage.

Limiting to Democrats only. Hillary is losing because of who she is. A slimy sleezy lying oportunist.I will agree that there is a signficant portion of the Democrats which are socialist. Te fact is Sanders is not the most charasmatic fellow and STILL Clinton is losing to him. Quite simply, even the Democrats see her for who she is. She is virtually unelectable because she IS what is wrong with politics in a nutshell. Her husband had the charism and the aw-shucks kinda charm which helped polish some of his flaws (that she shares). People look at Sanders and say, he at least is honest in what he stands for. He cares about the middle class. You look at Hillary and see, well both you and I know what we see.

Sanders is popular because there is little competition on the left to choose from. The popularity of Trump, Cruz and Rubio on the right is due to a dissatisfaction with the establishment.

You're right Pedro, in the larger sense I agree Sanders is hitting populist issues, and they are resonating more than what the others focus on more. The polls say terrorism and the economy are the big issues, but by "the economy" people mean their college debt, their job, etc. and Sanders speaks to those things.

So I agree there, and like I said I won't defend the GOP, and honestly their failure to set an agenda also explains Trump and Cruz. Even rank and file Republicans are sick of the establishment.

So I guess I agree some of it is simply that Sanders is talking about grass roots issues and problems, but the fact that his suggestions are either straight up socialist or at least tax and spend doesn't seem to trouble folks as much as it should IMO.


We also agree on Hillary. Just like the GOP voters being sick of the establishment, surely Dems are sick of it too, and she is the establishment up to her corrupt eyeballs. ANd she truly is corrupt, as much or more than anything I've seen in modern politics. What they've done with their foundation goes way beyond the claims about cheney and Halliburton. As you said, she's also as likeable as a STD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

So I guess I agree some of it is simply that Sanders is talking about grass roots issues and problems, but the fact that his suggestions are either straight up socialist or at least tax and spend doesn't seem to trouble folks as much as it should IMO.

---

He at least is offering something and you CAN'T underestimate that fact. For the most part, something is better than nothing and that will attract people. Socialism lost some of its negative connotation after the last market crash. People saw how the major corporations were bending them over a barrel and didn't face virtually ANY penalty for doing so. This hurt the Republican party BADLY, more so than I think the Republican party realizes yet. It made MANY people feel like, well if someone is going to get fucked, at least don't make it me. The Republicans just keep saying Tax Cuts on big business is all we need, but people are getting screwed over by big business left and right. From their jobs being cut, to increased prices, to the issues of the FTC allowing monosopies and calling it competition. Quite simply, there is NO party that is vouching for the common man and what he needs.

Time for me to train of thought think out loud. I will NOT claim that what I espouse from this point forward is well thought out. That being said, I know that this will cause me to loose some faith with Libertarians but I really feel that big business is ALMOST as dangerous as big government. I feel that capitalism works best when it is kept with MASSIVE competition but the instant you reduce the competition to a handful, that you end up with a system that favors the business at the expense of the general public. I really feel like if a party was able to push forward a workable plan that supported small to medium sized business, at the expense of the larger corporations it would do a LOT of good for the country. Some will claim that unions are the solution to the problem of big business, and truthfully I am not entirely anti-union (thought I am VERY anti american union, because the way they are structured in the USA makes them worse than big business). I don't believe that unions themselves are the answer, competition between companies and preventing these massive corporate structures would do a lot MORE good than promoting unions. Why is small-to-medium business better? Basically, it increases competition for the good workers, forces the execs to know the employees personally. If an exec is anti-employee he looses the quality employees are fundamental (along with him) to making a profit. It is this massive competition that keeps a balance between the demands of the employee and the demands of the business. At this time, many larger businesses are very executive favored. This is evidenced in the way the top level pay has far out stripped the increases in inflation, while the mid-level and below has not. I'm not sure what to call this viewpoint, because it is not inherently capitalist, maybe competitionalism? Truth be told, I'm not sure that is even workable, but I do know that the current system isn't really helping thing.

I need to be clear about my views: big business IS big government, at least to any real Libertarian. Not to the GOP establishment, but that's why we're sick of them.

Wall Street isn't the free market. Big business hates free markets, they have to compete in those. That's why they lobby so much to create barriers to entry and try to sew up markets with the help of government. They WANT regulation, b/c it prevents anyone small from starting up. They just want regs in their favor. So the battle becomes not IF regs, but what regs.

Socialism is in fact the embodiment of that system. Modern socialism in Europe works with quasi-government influenced "private" businesses that have near complete control over their industries. Boards with government appointed members, etc.

What Libertarians want is a real free market, without government interfering but also without them subsidizing and protecting.

And I agree no party is interested in that, not at the top. B/c the tops of both parties are about power, and free markets are about decentralizing power, and that means they have less power.

so we basically agree. on the left that's why Sanders is getting attention, and on the right we see the same thing where the top 3 guys are all outsiders, and the guy in first place is a complete outsider who doesn't give 2 rats about the establishment.

I guess I'd be happier though if the person challenging Hillary and getting that traction was suggesting even traditional Democratic ways of addressing those issues, not uber leftist ones.

I'm also 1000000% for small and medium business over big business, and when you look at a lot of big businesses (esp. outside the tech sector) you find companies deeply in bed with government.

Sanders is gaining traction IMO because there is a delineation between his opinions and the establishment right. That right includes Hillary Clinton because that's how she appears next to Sanders.