Don't kid yourself, he's staked out his own little piece of the pie.
He represents the single largest gun manufacturing state in the U.S., what's he soft on? gun laws.
I like Bernie but he will just as quickly compromise his beliefs in order to be elected or get a piece of legislation through, and thank god frankly, the last thing you want running a nuclear superpower is a true believer, that's how you get Hitler or Stalin.
He isn't Obama.
Go back and look at his political history. He has never compromised over anything. The guy was protesting segregation in the 60s.
I don't even have to agree with all his views to see that he isn't bought and paid for by corporate greed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Go back and look at his political history. He has never compromised over anything. The guy was protesting segregation in the 60s.
I don't even have to agree with all his views to see that he isn't bought and paid for by corporate greed.
Bernie has consistently voted against gun control measures that the rest of the dems voted for, such as the Brady Bill, he has managed to walk a fine line between pissing off his states major employer and his left wing constituency, he rates a D minus on gun issues by the NRA, which, you might think is a negative, but is in fact the best rating that any Dem in the race have, in fact Gov Pataki, the republican gets an F as does Hillary.
He is, within the context of a left wing senetor, soft on gun control, not because he is a believer in 2nd amendment rights but because he represents a state that is dependant on gun manufacturing.
On gun control he has utterly compromised his beliefs in order to continue to get elected.
What you need to realize is that looking like he doesn't compromise with big business is Bernie's Shtick, that's what gets him elected, just like Cruz's is 'I don't compromise with the Democrats', it's all still politics.
That is a possibility. I posited two theories on this at a conference a few months ago. Trump is either attempting to move the center line so far to the right that he makes Rubio and Cruz look like moderates, or he is the Manchurian candidate for the Clintons and doing everything he can in his power to make Republicans un-electable. One thing is certain, he is going to get a massive pay day out of this when it all comes to an end. The money in the numerous super pacs supporting his cause will go to Trump as soon as he ends his campaign. Sadly, thanks to Citizens United, we will never know how much that is or where the money came from.
A long time ago, before Trump even entered, I thought Cruz had taken up the outside right lane and was not going to let anyone get more right of him, of course. Donald screwed that up.
Not saying Donald is more right, per se, just that he has thrown normal conventions out of whack.
I think people are misreading the "Trump phenomenon". This isn't people getting sick of "the establishment", or a lack of compelling GOP nominees (probably the most qualified candidates ever).
This is a reaction to a fracturing party. The GOP created the angry mob, now the angry mob hates itself. Since the last election cycle the Republican party has been changing. All of the reasons they lost are central to what the party has reinforced as their core values.
I think people are misreading the "Trump phenomenon". This isn't people getting sick of "the establishment", or a lack of compelling GOP nominees (probably the most qualified candidates ever).
This is a reaction to a fracturing party. The GOP created the angry mob, now the angry mob hates itself. Since the last election cycle the Republican party has been changing. All of the reasons they lost are central to what the party has reinforced as their core values.
Well if you're right, maybe in the long run that's actually a healthy outcome for the U.S. Seems like the existing system and staunch bipartisanship could use a little fracturing and rebuild, with some more parties to choose from that have legit shots at the White House.
So much wrong with this post it isn't even funny. The narrative built up around St. Reagan never ceases to make my head spin. Your statements are true, but they come with distinct caveats.
Don't forget, closing mental institutions, which was a disaster that's still being felt, in the fact that the for profit prison system is now administering it.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
So much wrong with this post it isn't even funny. The narrative built up around St. Reagan never ceases to make my head spin. Your statements are true, but they come with distinct caveats.
Economically:
* In 1981 Reagan gave a massive 23% tax break to everyone, then adjusted tax brackets and personal exemptions that mostly affected the rich, giving them huge tax loopholes. He also granted massive loopholes to businesses.
* Due to Regan's tax cuts unemployment soared to 10.8%. This also kick started the problematic phenomena we see today, income inequity.
* Between 1984 and 1987 Reagan passed a tax bills that increased tax rates on the middle class, but again decreased taxes on the upper class. The end result of this was the top tax bracket was slashed from a 70% rate to a 28% rate. To pay for this loss of revenue he transferred that liability to the middle and lower class. If you were rich, Ronald Regan was your man. If you were middle class or poor, not so much.
* Reagan was also a massive tax and spender. He made that initial tax cut to redistribute the tax burden, but he also raised taxes seven times during his eight years in office, including the two largest peace time tax increases in American history, to try and pay for his increased spending on the military. He was forced to continue to raise taxes because he spent so much money on programs he felt were important, mostly military.
* Reagan also didn't give a rip about debts or deficits. Reagan tripled the budget deficit and increased the debt by almost $3 trillion. The crazy thing about his spending is that interest rates were at record highs. He borrowed all of that money at rates in double digits, and as high as 18% interest. People complain about borrowing money right now, but we are getting interest rates in the fractions of percentage point versus double digits. Which is more damaging in the long haul? Reagan's borrowing is going to be felt for generations.
Politically:
* While Reagan's spending did contribute to the fall of the Soviet Union, what defeated the Soviet's was their foray into Afghanistan. The Afghanistan campaign bleed to Soviets dry and bankrupted the nation. That left the Soviets with no other option but open up to western interests to get an influx of cash needed to rebuild their crumbling infrastructure.
* Reagan was responsible for the death of journalism, journalistic integrity, and the rise of a divided mediasphere. Reagan's killing of the Fairness Doctrine eliminated the requirements of balanced reporting (equal time on issues). He also forced changes on media ownership that began the slippery slope of elimination of the diversity of voices in the mass media to where are today. His changes on ownership and elimination of the balanced reporting requirement gave rise a new schism in the mass media and the future birth of politically motivated interests like hate radio and Fox News. Reagan didn't get us to this point on his own, the Telecommunications Act of 1993 under Clinton sold us completely out, but Reagan got the ball rolling by killing the Fainess Doctrine.
* Reagan was a cut and runner. He didn't have the taste for war and preferred to retreat and negotiate. When the Beirut marine barracks were bombed, he pulled out the troops and went home.
* Speaking of negotiating, Reagan negotiated with terrorists. Reagan has been given credit for negotiating the release of the hostages in Iran. He negotiated with terrorists for the release of hostages. Also, if anyone examines the timeline he did so prior to being in power. He did this through back channels before he was sworn in as president. Isn't there a word for this?
* Reagan, in a roundabout way, was responsible for the creation of Al Qeada. In his attempts to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan he approved the CIA training and equipping of the mujaheddin. Unbeknownst to him or the CIA a tall Wahhabi Saudi would join the cause and become an astute student of the tactics employed. That Saudi was Osama bin Laden and the mujaheddin would evolve into the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
* Reagan was soft on immigration. He granted amnesty to over 3 million illegals.
* Reagan grew government in ways other administrations never dreamed of. His spending and increases in the military bloated the government in size, but Reagan also created the Department of Veteran Affairs, which continues to be one of the largest of all governmental agencies.
A point to also remember about Reagan is he didn't give a #### about the rules. They didn't apply to him or to his cronies. His use of the Kitchen Cabinet to develop policy was appalling. His ignorance of the illegal actions that took place on his watch, Iran-Contra as an example, was disgusting. To have his wife carry the banner on the War on Drugs, then allow the CIA to import and sell drugs to pay for weapons to support other regimes was criminal. He was the epitome of modern politician.
The myth of Ronald Reagan is a real pet peeve of mine. I don't mind when people get a fact or two wrong, but to create a narrative that is completely counter to the facts is just unacceptable. Reagan would be considered a liberal Democrat in today's politics. He was an anti-war, large spending, big government politician. He was all for the rich and sticking it to the middle class, but that is the way of both parties these days. Reagan would be a perfect fit on the left side of the aisle.
Nice short story's but what was the alternative at the time?
Go back and look at his political history. He has never compromised over anything. The guy was protesting segregation in the 60s.
I don't even have to agree with all his views to see that he isn't bought and paid for by corporate greed.
His gun control views are the only thing he's really flipped on since becoming a presidential candidate. But he's been supporting LGBT rights and racial equality for his entire career as a politician, he was supporting LGBT rights long before it was likely to garner any votes. He's marched with MLK and been involved in Civil Rights sit-ins.
Outside of gun control laws, he hasn't really changed his tune much over his career.
Nice short story's but what was the alternative at the time?
Lots of different options. The reason the economy stunk and there was massive inflation was because of of the OPEC oil embargo and the impact it had on the economy and then the domestic instability caused by Watergate. It took a full term from Carter to begin to get the ship righted. Reagan's tax cuts were the absolute worst thing that he could have done, and it showed in both the huge jump in unemployment and then Reagan's subsequent increases in taxes. I can't believe that anyone who was alive at that time doesn't have an understanding of the world situation and the negative impact Reagan had on, not only the United States, but on the world in general. The instability he created in Central and South America was unprecedented. JFC, people were certain we were headed toward nuclear war and the destruction of the planet with "Ronnie Raygun" at the helm! The guy made mistake after mistake. The only thing that people remember correctly about him was his "tear down this wall" speech. Beyond that everything else is a total fabrication and contradiction of what really happened. Thankfully we have a generation of activist conservatives to rewrite history and name as many buildings and airports as they can to make people forget the facts. Keep up the good work in that regard!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
His gun control views are the only thing he's really flipped on since becoming a presidential candidate. But he's been supporting LGBT rights and racial equality for his entire career as a politician, he was supporting LGBT rights long before it was likely to garner any votes. He's marched with MLK and been involved in Civil Rights sit-ins.
Outside of gun control laws, he hasn't really changed his tune much over his career.
He's an independant left wing senator from Vermont, gun control is the only issue he had to compromise over, he's not a democrat, he was not looking to push legislation or run committees, his whole political career is based on being an outsider, that's his image.
He has only had one issue where taking an unpopular position would hurt him at the ballot box, and that was on gun control and he flipped and flopped like a new caught fish.
Bernie has consistently voted against gun control measures that the rest of the dems voted for, such as the Brady Bill, he has managed to walk a fine line between pissing off his states major employer and his left wing constituency, he rates a D minus on gun issues by the NRA, which, you might think is a negative, but is in fact the best rating that any Dem in the race have, in fact Gov Pataki, the republican gets an F as does Hillary.
He is, within the context of a left wing senetor, soft on gun control, not because he is a believer in 2nd amendment rights but because he represents a state that is dependant on gun manufacturing.
On gun control he has utterly compromised his beliefs in order to continue to get elected.
What you need to realize is that looking like he doesn't compromise with big business is Bernie's Shtick, that's what gets him elected, just like Cruz's is 'I don't compromise with the Democrats', it's all still politics.
See, your problem is you think the solution to the prevailing gun crime problem in the States is gun control. I don't. I think the underlying problem goes much deeper, and if you solve that, you solve most of your gun problem.
I think people are misreading the "Trump phenomenon". This isn't people getting sick of "the establishment", or a lack of compelling GOP nominees (probably the most qualified candidates ever).
This is a reaction to a fracturing party. The GOP created the angry mob, now the angry mob hates itself. Since the last election cycle the Republican party has been changing. All of the reasons they lost are central to what the party has reinforced as their core values.
Last election cycle as in the tea party to now? Because it changed from the Bush years to the tea party years to now.
See, your problem is you think the solution to the prevailing gun crime problem in the States is gun control. I don't. I think the underlying problem goes much deeper, and if you solve that, you solve most of your gun problem.
See, your problem is you think the solution to the prevailing gun crime problem in the States is gun control. I don't. I think the underlying problem goes much deeper, and if you solve that, you solve most of your gun problem.
Sanders agrees with me.
I don't really care about the States gun problem, it's their country, not mine, I was just pointing out that Sanders is no different from any other politician, faced with an issue where he had to choose between his beliefs and reelection he choose reelection.
He's lucky that, due to his political status, he hasn't had to make this choice very often, had he wished to become part of the political mainstream he would clearly have made as many compromises as everyone else and as a president he will have to just as surely as Obama or Clinton.
You're kidding right? The guy is pushing the idea of universal health care or a single payer system right into the face of the massive health care lobby. He is talking about taxing Wall Street to fund free college tuition. He is talking about taxing the rich more and the middle glass less.
And those are all things he has been fighting for his entire political career, and yet every one of those issues are not popular within the Democrat or Republican parties. Hillary actually screamed and yelled at a rally the other day that the single payer system would never exist in the States. Almost right after big health care gave her $13 million in donations.
I think you're being extremely naive if you think Sanders is no different from any other politician. He is NOT accepting corporate money. That alone makes him a LOT different.
But keep sticking your head in the sand.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
