Feeling the Bern?

[jasonnfree]

Speaking of geriatrics, old Bernie will be 75 years old, if he lives long enough until election day. An old socialist like that, who never accomplished jack-shit or had a single bill that he introduced PASS in 26 years in office, his health is surely in decline if he's been relying on commie socialist "govmint" doctors all these years. I wonder, when he passes away, if he'll opt for a burial in the Soviet Union - the same place he honeymooned in?

So retired military doesn't get health care provided by taxpayers just like bernie?

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

So retired military doesn't get health care provided by taxpayers just like bernie?

Don't have a clue. I'd rather fund healthcare for veterans, military, law enforcement, teachers, than filthy Muslims whom you favor.

 

[PredFan]

I believe that Bernie tells what he believes is the truth. I do not think that he lies. The problem is that he is truely bat shit crazy. He actually believes the crazy shit he says.

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

Hmmm...looks like reading and reading comprehension is a chronic problem for you. Tough luck.

So you're no longer a Cruz supporter, and you figured if you deflected long enough people wouldn't notice.

Let me clue you in since you are devoid of any clue and cannot understand what you read. This thread isn't about Cruz, I never mentioned Cruz, and Cruz had nothing to do with anything I posted.

Learn to read, moron.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary is fellin the Bern

 

[Arianrhod]

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

Hmmm...looks like reading and reading comprehension is a chronic problem for you. Tough luck.

So you're no longer a Cruz supporter, and you figured if you deflected long enough people wouldn't notice.

Let me clue you in since you are devoid of any clue and cannot understand what you read. This thread isn't about Cruz, I never mentioned Cruz, and Cruz had nothing to do with anything I posted.

Learn to read, moron.

Let me clue you in: You've decided this thread is about me, because you have nothing intelligent to contribute about Sanders, and your mind is so inflexible you can only retain one thought at a time, so mentioning Cruz sends you into a tizzy.

You'd be better off watching the returns from NH than lecturing me.

 

[PredFan]

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

Hmmm...looks like reading and reading comprehension is a chronic problem for you. Tough luck.

So you're no longer a Cruz supporter, and you figured if you deflected long enough people wouldn't notice.

Let me clue you in since you are devoid of any clue and cannot understand what you read. This thread isn't about Cruz, I never mentioned Cruz, and Cruz had nothing to do with anything I posted.

Learn to read, moron.

Let me clue you in: You've decided this thread is about me, because you have nothing intelligent to contribute about Sanders, and your mind is so inflexible you can only retain one thought at a time, so mentioning Cruz sends you into a tizzy.

You'd be better off watching the returns from NH than lecturing me.

Look, you are an idiot, so I'll end my participation in your stupidity by reminding you that YOU made it about you. My OP had nothing to do with you or Cruz.

Dismissed.

 

[Arianrhod]

YOU made it about you.

Actually, I made it about Cruz, but I can understand why that confused you. Buh-bye.

 

[Flopper]

"Ugh. If Hillary is the candidate, I won't vote.

I don't want any of those crazy Republican candidates anywhere near the White House (and all of them are many times worse than G.W. Bush)."

Agreed.

In which case you'll need to vote.

A significant number of us have never voted 'for' anyone, only against.

A significant number of us are pragmatists who long ago accepted a fundamental fact of American politics: voting for the lesser of two evils.

It's understood that there are those who wish to feel excited about those whom they vote for, that their vote will make a difference, and will go to support a candidate who will accomplish what the voter would like to see accomplished.

But that's often not how it works.

The problem isn't a lack of 'good' candidates, or that 'poor' candidates alone seek public office.

The problem is the hyper-partisan nature of American politics, where not only elected office and its privileges are at stake, but where our fundamental rights are in jeopardy, part of the spoils of political war, the consequence of those crazy Republicans, rightwing extremists, and social conservatives.

The Framers created a Constitutional Republic to safeguard our rights and liberties, to shield them from the intrigues and acrimony of partisan conflict, from those who would seek to attack the protected liberties of their political enemies, as most on the right seek to do today.

It would be nice to participate in the political process, to support the candidate who best represents one's views and beliefs, comforted by the fact that whomever might become president, one's rights and liberties would indeed be beyond the reach of that partisan conflict.

Sadly, that's not the case.

With each of the republican candidates for president hostile to the privacy rights of women and the equal protection rights of gay Americans, who as president would appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the Supreme Court with the intent of undermining settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence and our protected liberties, in addition to republicans' wrongheaded fiscal policy, foreign policy, and propensity for war, we are compelled to vote this November, to vote against the republican nominee, not 'for' someone we don't like.

We elect our leaders not to steadfastly hang on to political ideology but to actually solve real world problems. That means choosing battles that can be won, not just putting up the good fight to insure re-election.

To me there are several candidates that would be a disaster. Trump is just plain unfit for office. Ted Cruz's dogmatic approach to government and focus on unachievable objectives will mean 4 years of infighting within his own party. On the democrat side, I think Sanders proposals would meet strong resistance in a democrat controlled congress and would not even get out of committee in a republican congress. A vote for any of these candidates would amount to a protest vote.

In my opinion, neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the republican candidates have the ability or inclination to "solve real world problems". They may pay lip service to our problems and perhaps find some ineffective and temporary Band-aides to cover up festering wounds, but festering wounds will still be there.

We need to cure the cancer that afflicts our political establishment. It might be resistant to "the cure", but we have no choice. We must treat the disease or die. The "pragmatists" say that trying to cure the disease is an exercise in futility, so we have to settle for the ineffective bandages. I'm not settling.

Edited to add: I had hope for Obama, but was deeply disappointed. Obamacare, i.e., The AFFORDABLE Healthcare Act (Aha!) is not affordable. It is a Band-aide for the poor, a Burden for the middle class, and a Boon for insurance corporations. The corporations hiked up the insurance premiums, are experiencing record profits, and are using billions of dollars of those profits to buy up the smaller companies in order to get their forced customers. (Obama also failed to deliver on any of his other campaign "promises".) So, when Obama ran for re-election in 2012, I did not vote for him. I stayed home. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll stay home again. I won't help my fellow citizens put an ineffective bandage on our serious national problems.

Obamacare is a good example of well intended legislation that became too broad in order to gain enough votes to pass. It is now deeply entrenched in every aspects of healthcare. It needs changes as did social security and medicare. The idea of simply repealing and starting all over again is ridiculous. Neither the congress, the American people, nor the any of the candidates really want to face years of fighting over healthcare again. After Obamacare passed, Democrats loss the House and had most of their planned legislation blocked for 6 years. Republicans are not likely to want to go down the same road.

Most of the establishment candidates, Hillary, Rubio, Kaish, Bush, and Christie would all mange the executive branch effectively and get some legislation passed. The radicals, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders would be jousting at windmills, and pursuing issues that would never make it through congress and thus be of no lasting impact.