Why, it's BERNIE SANDERS!
http://www.npr.org/sections/it...s-showing-up-for-him
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...oines_n_7577210.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sa...ig-crowds-1434447004
http://www.minnpost.com/glean/...ig-crowd-minneapolis
Bernie is packing em in! No one in either party is coming close to attracting the crowds that show up to see and hear this straight-talking, sincerity-oozing political veteran! You go, BERNIE!!
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Appears even the Democrats can't stomach Hillary.
He's an oddity. Then again, the left has been dragging us towards socialism. Consider too-
By May, Perot was leading presidential polls in both Texas and California.
He's attracted large crowds in Iowa, a state known for sharp partisan showings and in his home areas of Vermont and New Hampshire. Otherwise, its the old PT Barnum attraction of the freak show.
He's attracted large crowds in Iowa, a state known for sharp partisan showings and in his home areas of Vermont and New Hampshire. Otherwise, its the old PT Barnum attraction of the freak show.
___
You wish.
He's attracted large crowds in Iowa, a state known for sharp partisan showings and in his home areas of Vermont and New Hampshire. Otherwise, its the old PT Barnum attraction of the freak show.
___
You wish.
______________________________
No Condie, I know.
3 times more serious Republican hopefuls, which dilutes the showings.
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
=========
I don't think that is true, please provide credible, ie NOT Faux News, article where he has stated that.
However, now that you mention it, I recall that FDR did put a top precentage income tax in place on the uber rich of his day, of around 95% , but lowered it for the working poor (what there was of them working ) , in order to help end the Gilded Age and restore money back into circulation. It worked to a degree , and the very high tax rates hung around , never dipping below 70% until the 1980, where the top tax rate was dropped to 50%., then later to 28%. Clinton took to top rate back up to 39.6%. Idiot cut them to 35% .
Said all that to say, we have been there before , and if you remember the 50s, 60s, and 70s the country did quite well . In the 90s , the economy virtually exploded when Clinton raised the top rate up to 39.6% (much to the distain of the grumpy ole R's who claimed it would ruin the country).
If you aren't making over half million dollars a year, you won't have much to worry about in Bernie.
3 times more serious Republican hopefuls, which dilutes the showings.
=====
No clown car for this bunch, an entire clown bus is required right now.
Appears even the Democrats can't stomach Hillary.
where are you getting your infor. i can and i will support her.
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
=========
I don't think that is true, please provide credible, ie NOT Faux News, article where he has stated that.
However, now that you mention it, I recall that FDR did put a top precentage income tax in place on the uber rich of his day, of around 95% , but lowered it for the working poor (what there was of them working ) , in order to help end the Gilded Age and restore money back into circulation. It worked to a degree , and the very high tax rates hung around , never dipping below 70% until the 1980, where the top tax rate was dropped to 50%., then later to 28%. Clinton took to top rate back up to 39.6%. Idiot cut them to 35% .
Said all that to say, we have been there before , and if you remember the 50s, 60s, and 70s the country did quite well . In the 90s , the economy virtually exploded when Clinton raised the top rate up to 39.6% (much to the distain of the grumpy ole R's who claimed it would ruin the country).
If you aren't making over half million dollars a year, you won't have much to worry about in Bernie.
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
______
Jack typically gets his information from the Thin Air Encyclopedia.
=========
I don't think that is true, please provide credible, ie NOT Faux News, article where he has stated that.
However, now that you mention it, I recall that FDR did put a top precentage income tax in place on the uber rich of his day, of around 95% , but lowered it for the working poor (what there was of them working ) , in order to help end the Gilded Age and restore money back into circulation. It worked to a degree , and the very high tax rates hung around , never dipping below 70% until the 1980, where the top tax rate was dropped to 50%., then later to 28%. Clinton took to top rate back up to 39.6%. Idiot cut them to 35% .
Said all that to say, we have been there before , and if you remember the 50s, 60s, and 70s the country did quite well . In the 90s , the economy virtually exploded when Clinton raised the top rate up to 39.6% (much to the distain of the grumpy ole R's who claimed it would ruin the country).
If you aren't making over half million dollars a year, you won't have much to worry about in Bernie.
He's attracted large crowds in Iowa, a state known for sharp partisan showings and in his home areas of Vermont and New Hampshire. Otherwise, its the old PT Barnum attraction of the freak show.
___
You wish.
______________________________
No Condie, I know.
____
You and many others "know so much that just ain't so."
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
=========
I don't think that is true, please provide credible, ie NOT Faux News, article where he has stated that.
Still stuck on the tired old faux meme for Fox, Most lefties have abandoned that, realizing the general public no longer believes it. Here's a far let sight that reports the 90 percent tax rate from Bernie.
http://thinkprogress.org/econo...ders-90-percent-tax/
However, now that you mention it, I recall that FDR did put a top precentage income tax in place on the uber rich of his day, of around 95% , but lowered it for the working poor (what there was of them working ) , in order to help end the Gilded Age and restore money back into circulation. It worked to a degree , and the very high tax rates hung around , never dipping below 70% until the 1980, where the top tax rate was dropped to 50%., then later to 28%. Clinton took to top rate back up to 39.6%. Idiot cut them to 35% .
The Gilded Age ended about 1880. FDR was president in the first half of the 1900s. Left is mathematically challenged and, historically challenged, as well, I see. FDR raised the tax rates to pay for the war and stop war profiteering.
Said all that to say, we have been there before , and if you remember the 50s, 60s, and 70s the country did quite well .
During the 50s and 60s the US was the last man standing with an intact industrial base and a work force not killed or maimed by WWII. We have discussed this many time before. Yet, you still bring this up. Is the inability to maintain memory a left wing trait?
In the 90s , the economy virtually exploded when Clinton raised the top rate up to 39.6% (much to the distain (sic) of the grumpy ole R's who claimed it would ruin the country).
The 90s boomed because of the internet boom. Then, burst because of the dotcom bomb.
If you aren't making over half million dollars a year, you won't have much to worry about in Bernie.
Under JFK, Reagan and Bush, tax rates were cut and tax revenue increased.
The economy is now global. If you wish to run off the high income producers, who also increase the economy -- do so. Worked wonders in France. London now has a French population rivaling that of the mother country's largest cities.
Bernie wants to raise the income tax rate to 90% Only an idiot would
say, go Bernie. But then tha's one of the stupid people they counted on to
love and pass socialisthealthcare...........
=========
I don't think that is true, please provide credible, ie NOT Faux News, article where he has stated that.
Still stuck on the tired old faux meme for Fox, Most lefties have abandoned that, realizing the general public no longer believes it. Here's a far let sight that reports the 90 percent tax rate from Bernie.
http://thinkprogress.org/econo...ders-90-percent-tax/
However, now that you mention it, I recall that FDR did put a top precentage income tax in place on the uber rich of his day, of around 95% , but lowered it for the working poor (what there was of them working ) , in order to help end the Gilded Age and restore money back into circulation. It worked to a degree , and the very high tax rates hung around , never dipping below 70% until the 1980, where the top tax rate was dropped to 50%., then later to 28%. Clinton took to top rate back up to 39.6%. Idiot cut them to 35% .
The Gilded Age ended about 1880. FDR was president in the first half of the 1900s. Left is mathematically challenged and, historically challenged, as well, I see. FDR raised the tax rates to pay for the war and stop war profiteering.
Said all that to say, we have been there before , and if you remember the 50s, 60s, and 70s the country did quite well .
During the 50s and 60s the US was the last man standing with an intact industrial base and a work force not killed or maimed by WWII. We have discussed this many time before. Yet, you still bring this up. Is the inability to maintain memory a left wing trait?
In the 90s , the economy virtually exploded when Clinton raised the top rate up to 39.6% (much to the distain (sic) of the grumpy ole R's who claimed it would ruin the country).
The 90s boomed because of the internet boom. Then, burst because of the dotcom bomb.
If you aren't making over half million dollars a year, you won't have much to worry about in Bernie.
Under JFK, Reagan and Bush, tax rates were cut and tax revenue increased.
The economy is now global. If you wish to run off the high income producers, who also increase the economy -- do so. Worked wonders in France. London now has a French population rivaling that of the mother country's largest cities.
_______________________________________________________
The FDR tax story isn't exactly true either. FDR may have had a top 95% tax bracket in 1944, but he had a captive audiance. Where would a rich man go in a world war to hide his money?
While it is true that the tax rate increases more than doubled the income tax gotten from the top 1% during the 1930s, but the effective tax rates paid by the modern 1 percenters is higher. Also it wasn't FDR that hiked the taxes, it was a liberal Republican with the usual tax and spend Democrats in Congress:
As a group, the New Deal revenue acts of the mid-1930s substantially boosted the tax burden on rich Americans. According to Brownlee, the income tax changes alone raised the effective rate on the top 1 percent from 6.8 percent in 1932 to 15.7 percent in 1937.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/...046BCAF?OpenDocument
The effective tax rate of the top 1% was 23.5%: The average tax rate paid by these high-income households was 23.5% -- which represents the percent of their income they paid in federal income taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/
The working stiff didn't get out of the Depression free either, they paid a lot of excise taxes:
Some of the most important elements of the New Deal tax regime were engineered by Herbert Hoover. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1932 five months before Franklin Roosevelt won his bid for the White House. But key elements of the law -- including an array of regressive consumption taxes -- remained a cornerstone of federal finance throughout the 1930s.
The 1932 act imposed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Congress expected it to raise roughly $1.1 billion in new revenue, much of it from the rich. Lawmakers raised income tax rates across the board, with the top marginal rate jumping from 25 percent to 63 percent; overall effective rates on the richest 1 percent doubled, according to economic historian Elliot Brownlee. Meanwhile, estate tax rates also climbed sharply, while the exemption was cut by half.
For all its progressive features, Hoover's revenue swan song -- which passed with strong support from the Democratic majority in Congress -- also included an array of regressive excise taxes. The law created new levies (including taxes on gasoline and electricity), while raising rates for old ones. As a group, most of these consumption taxes fell squarely on the shoulders of Roosevelt's famous Forgotten Man. Yet once in office, the new president did nothing to reduce them. Indeed, excise taxes provided anywhere from a third to half of federal revenue throughout the 1930s.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/...046BCAF?OpenDocument
3 times more serious Republican hopefuls, which dilutes the showings.
=====
No clown car for this bunch, an entire clown bus is required right now.
Dims tried to get the clown bus, however, it offended the clowns.
Sorry, OP.
Nothing but the bought-and-paid-for W H O R E media, publishing BS...to get the Lids (you) geared up to send Hillary Corruption, more money.
Nothing to see here.
Sorry, OP.
Nothing but the bought-and-paid-for W H O R E media, publishing BS...to get the Lids (you) geared up to send Hillary Corruption, more money.
Nothing to see here.
____
"Lids?" Lids to what?
Glass houses beternnun, glass houses. Remember 'diaacussions' professor DA? Among other mistakes of yours. Remember when you 'corrected' me about Down's Syndrome beternnun?
LIDS -- Liberals In Delusion. Aka normality for them.
Why, it's BERNIE SANDERS!
http://www.npr.org/sections/it...s-showing-up-for-him
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...oines_n_7577210.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sa...ig-crowds-1434447004
http://www.minnpost.com/glean/...ig-crowd-minneapolis
Bernie is packing em in! No one in either party is coming close to attracting the crowds that show up to see and hear this straight-talking, sincerity-oozing political veteran! You go, BERNIE!!
=============================
Yes bernie, you go. Is this one reason beternun likes him so much? I bet it is.
============================
NASHUA, N.H – Sen. Bernie Sanders praised the decision of the “conservative Supreme Court” to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide during a campaign stop at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire today.
“They did this just on the merits of the case…. It’s also that they live in the real world and they realize times are changing,” Sanders said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all forms.”
Sanders added that he is proud he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
The independent senator from Vermont identifies himself as a “democratic socialist” and is seeking the Democratic nomination for president.
Old Bernie wants the US to join those other exemplars of democratic socialism -- Greece, Venezuela and Argentina.
Betertnnun sez:
You go, BERNIE!!
Betertnnun sez:
You go, BERNIE!!
____
Once more you put your small-mindedness on display, Best. As I have previously stated on this forum, I am not one of those politically mono-directional automatons who demands that any candidate I support must line up with my views on every single issue. I leave that kind of narrow-mindedness to the Tea Party and others of the rigid untra-right wing sector, including such robots as yourself.
Betertnnun sez:
You go, BERNIE!!
____
Once more you put your small-mindedness on display, Best. As I have previously stated on this forum, I am not one of those politically mono-directional automatons who demands that any candidate I support must line up with my views on every single issue. I leave that kind of narrow-mindedness to the Tea Party and others of the rigid untra-right wing sector, including such robots as yourself.
====================
Gee beternnun, I have posted so many times that a person can't agree with their candidate 100% of the time, that it is impossible, and that you have to look at the whole picture and decide the best for you. You dems just jump on any bandwagon that seems to be doing the best at the moment. Now with that being 'said', in other threads you have put a lot of importance on those two subjects, women's rights and homosexual's rights, and while I'm sure the woman's rights subject is just for argument for you, and you don't really give a crap, you still try to use it against Republicans. Now of course your hatred of homosexuals is so strong you can't even pretend anything differently on that subject, but you're given a pass by other lefties. Squawk all you want, but it is very telling that you would post 'go bernie', when he sure seems to be on the opposite side of you on those two subjects. IMO you had no idea, you just thought you were being what you love to strive to be, abrasive, and instead you've eaten crow yet again.
Bernie Sanders continues to draw BIG crowds, outdrawing all candidates of both parties by a huge margin.. The first link below is an RSVP form for his proposed appearance at a local venue seating about 800 people. Over 3000 people responded, thus necessitating a move to the city of Portland Maine's hockey arena, as explained in the second link.
https://go.berniesanders.com/p...ent/detail/wrt7#rsvp
http://www.pressherald.com/201...oss-insurance-arena/
The arena's seating capacity is described below:
Cross Insurance Arena (formerly Cumberland County Civic Center) is a multi-purpose arena located in Portland, Maine. Built in 1977, at a cost of $8 million, it is the home arena for the Portland Pirates of the American Hockey League. There are 6,733 permanent seats in the arena, and it seats up to 9,500 for concerts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Insurance_Arena
BERNIE SANDERS---A force to be reckoned with!!!
Betertnnun sez:
You go, BERNIE!!
____
Once more you put your small-mindedness on display, Best. As I have previously stated on this forum, I am not one of those politically mono-directional automatons who demands that any candidate I support must line up with my views on every single issue. I leave that kind of narrow-mindedness to the Tea Party and others of the rigid untra-right wing sector, including such robots as yourself.
====================
Gee beternnun, I have posted so many times that a person can't agree with their candidate 100% of the time, that it is impossible, and that you have to look at the whole picture and decide the best for you. You dems just jump on any bandwagon that seems to be doing the best at the moment. Now with that being 'said', in other threads you have put a lot of importance on those two subjects, women's rights and homosexual's rights, and while I'm sure the woman's rights subject is just for argument for you, and you don't really give a crap, you still try to use it against Republicans. Now of course your hatred of homosexuals is so strong you can't even pretend anything differently on that subject, but you're given a pass by other lefties. Squawk all you want, but it is very telling that you would post 'go bernie', when he sure seems to be on the opposite side of you on those two subjects. IMO you had no idea, you just thought you were being what you love to strive to be, abrasive, and instead you've eaten crow yet again.
____
There you go again, playing the silly but predictable "hate card" re my alleged take on homosexuals. Like other tunnel-visioned ideologues, you refuse to recognize that one can strongly disagree with, and oppose the views or the behavior of a given person or persons, without hating same. Your childish take on the matter is truly shameful.
I am very familiar with Senator Sanders' views on politically sensitive topics, probably more so that you.
Sanders, for example, would be regarded as soft on gun control, which I, of course, am not:
"Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted againstthe Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills toallow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)"
http://www.slate.com/articles/...gun_control_for.html
My view of Sanders' position on gun control is a pragmatic one. I believe that the gun lobby is so powerful and influential that no matter how many more mass killings with guns will happen in this gun-crazy country, the Congress and the legislatures of the states will not act intelligently to implement even modest gun control measures that are totally constitutional. Thus, I will not permit any candidate's position on gun control to influence my vote. I will evaluate a candidate's position on issues that are subject to thoughtful evaluation and potential improvement through sensible reform. I suggest you do the same.
My view of Sanders' position on gun control is a pragmatic one. I believe that the gun lobby is so powerful and influential that no matter how many more mass killings with guns will happen in this gun-crazy country, the Congress and the legislatures of the states will not act intelligently to implement even modest gun control measures that are totally constitutional. Thus, I will not permit any candidate's position on gun control to influence my vote. I will evaluate a candidate's position on issues that are subject to thoughtful evaluation and potential improvement through sensible reform. I suggest you do the same.
======================
I suggest you pay attention. That is what I do. There is no potential for improvement with a democrap candidate. The rest of your blather about gun-crazy people and mass killings, blah blah blah, just more BS. There's not a dime's worth of difference in sanders and hillary, both are socialist trash.
My view of Sanders' position on gun control is a pragmatic one. I believe that the gun lobby is so powerful and influential that no matter how many more mass killings with guns will happen in this gun-crazy country, the Congress and the legislatures of the states will not act intelligently to implement even modest gun control measures that are totally constitutional. Thus, I will not permit any candidate's position on gun control to influence my vote. I will evaluate a candidate's position on issues that are subject to thoughtful evaluation and potential improvement through sensible reform. I suggest you do the same.
======================
I suggest you pay attention. That is what I do. There is no potential for improvement with a democrap candidate. The rest of your blather about gun-crazy people and mass killings, blah blah blah, just more BS. There's not a dime's worth of difference in sanders and hillary, both are socialist trash.
__
There is no potential for improvement in the quality of your comments either. Same old predictable, absolutist, tunnel-vision wingnut tripe.
My view of Sanders' position on gun control is a pragmatic one. I believe that the gun lobby is so powerful and influential that no matter how many more mass killings with guns will happen in this gun-crazy country, the Congress and the legislatures of the states will not act intelligently to implement even modest gun control measures that are totally constitutional. Thus, I will not permit any candidate's position on gun control to influence my vote. I will evaluate a candidate's position on issues that are subject to thoughtful evaluation and potential improvement through sensible reform. I suggest you do the same.
======================
I suggest you pay attention. That is what I do. There is no potential for improvement with a democrap candidate. The rest of your blather about gun-crazy people and mass killings, blah blah blah, just more BS. There's not a dime's worth of difference in sanders and hillary, both are socialist trash.
__
There is no potential for improvement in the quality of your comments either. Same old predictable, absolutist, tunnel-vision wingnut tripe.
=============================
My comments sure make you cry. What's the problem with my comments? Do you deny they're socialists? Do you claim there is any difference in them at all? The rest of it, your blather about gun crazy people, BS.
Old Bernie wants the US to join those other exemplars of democratic socialism -- Greece, Venezuela and Argentina.
______________________________________________________
Still no answer of the model the Dems wish to emulate. Argentina's financial status was so downgraded only Hugo Chavez would buy their bonds, Now, Venezuela suffers from such rampant inflation, Argentines, with their debased currency, are vacationing there.
Of course, there are also Ecuador, Bolivia, Portugal and Spain to choose from for democratic socialist models to follow. Italy, also, however, things are so bad, their north wishes to secede from their south. And, Venice wished to secede from both.
My view of Sanders' position on gun control is a pragmatic one. I believe that the gun lobby is so powerful and influential that no matter how many more mass killings with guns will happen in this gun-crazy country, the Congress and the legislatures of the states will not act intelligently to implement even modest gun control measures that are totally constitutional. Thus, I will not permit any candidate's position on gun control to influence my vote. I will evaluate a candidate's position on issues that are subject to thoughtful evaluation and potential improvement through sensible reform. I suggest you do the same.
======================
I suggest you pay attention. That is what I do. There is no potential for improvement with a democrap candidate. The rest of your blather about gun-crazy people and mass killings, blah blah blah, just more BS. There's not a dime's worth of difference in sanders and hillary, both are socialist trash.
__
There is no potential for improvement in the quality of your comments either. Same old predictable, absolutist, tunnel-vision wingnut tripe.
=============================
My comments sure make you cry. What's the problem with my comments? Do you deny they're socialists? Do you claim there is any difference in them at all? The rest of it, your blather about gun crazy people, BS.
____
Not crying; just rolling my eyes and laughing!
Get off it beternnun, you never laugh, but you whine and cry constantly.
Get off it beternnun, you never laugh, but you whine and cry constantly.
____
O wad some gift the Giftie gie ye, to see yersel as ithers see ye!
With apologies to Robert Burns.
I think you know how others see you. They tell you often enough. You're a joke without a punch line/payoff.
I think you know how others see you. They tell you often enough. You're a joke without a punch line/payoff.
____
Your problem is one of bogus transference, the ASSumption that your views are so finely tuned that others can not help but subscribe to them.Such a pathological condition afflicts many wingnuts.
Sorry, OP.
Nothing but the bought-and-paid-for W H O R E media, publishing BS...to get the Lids (you) geared up to send Hillary Corruption, more money.
Nothing to see here.
____
"Lids?" Lids to what?
=====
Are you referring to those of use who used to buy pot by the lid ?
Although, i have given a number of democratic socialist models in Europe and South America. none have commented upon which they wish to emulate.
Perhaps, I should go a bit north in Europe -- what about Norway? Before any of our Dems comment, there are a few things one should know about their model. Without North Sea oil, their model would be in the same ballpark as Portugal -- ie. better than Greece, but still going down the drain.
On a business blog I had an interesting long running commentary. The Norwegians were under the assumption that only 10 percent of government revenue came from North Sea oil, plus excess revenue was invested in a sovereignty fund. They overlooked the income taxes paid by those employed by the oil industry, various business taxes directly paid by the industry, and taxes paid by companies supplying the oil industry and those employed by same. Once all that was considered, the truth was that about 33 percent of all government revenue was from oil. Remove that revenue and add the tens of thousands unemployed when the oil runs out, and the socialist model collapses. As to th sovereignty fund, an audit identified about half the investments were questionable, at best.
Basing one's adult Disneyland upon a depreciating asset like oil, with no replacement plan in place will not be pretty down the road.
Get off it beternnun, you never laugh, but you whine and cry constantly.
____
O wad some gift the Giftie gie ye, to see yersel as ithers see ye!
With apologies to Robert Burns.
____________________________________
Ahh! Did someone plow up your wee home. With apologies to Rabbie Burns, indeed!
