There are certain pieces of legislation that have led to the current wealth gap and all of the problems most everyone agrees on.

Guess who fought hard against them at the time, sometimes being the only nay?

That is the kind of person needed. — creativesoul

Damn right.

A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else.
— NOS4A2

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day... — Artemis

Or on reality.

Very glad to hear it. I agree -- there really doesn't seem to be an alternative. I didn't like Clinton at all, but I voted for her. People who don't like Bernie can at least do that.

All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? — NOS4A2

Well he's been consistently on the right side of history for 40 years, fighting for working people.

True, it's not as glamorous as inheriting millions of dollars, bankrupting multiple businesses, and becoming a reality TV star. But not everyone can be a very stable genius with the best words.

He's been mixed with BLM, The young turks, Alexandra ocasio-cortez and other far left-wing, ridiculous people/organisations. — Judaka

I don't consider any of those ridiculous.

Throwing around the term of "democratic socialism" doesn't really help either. — Judaka

Yeah yeah, that's been said a million times. Anyone who already believes it's a negative will continue believing it, and would label him or anyone else a socialist anyway. So it really doesn't matter. Those who are curious may learn something about a political philosophy that they didn't think existed, as it's been wrapped up in propaganda for decades.

But the president sets the agenda for their entire party, so having a president like Bernie being in charge is a useful first step toward change in the right direction. — Pfhorrest

Exactly -- assuming the democrats don't take the Senate. Then again, even if they DO it may still be hard to pass anything, given the moderate vote.

That's a very important point. I've been trying to make this point as well. It bears repeating over and over again. In many ways, he's already won - in this respect.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump. — Relativist

That's a fair point. If Bernie were unelectable, my own opinion is that I would put up someone who could beat Trump instead, if it were guaranteed. I'm not 100% on that, however. There's arguments that can be made.

But the fact is, Sanders looks pretty good in a match-up against Trump. It's true that Biden was polling better in some key states, but he was polling better nationally too not long ago and has taken a huge dive. A lot of that was simple name recognition and association with Obama.

Since we don't have a magic ball, and since the only evidence we have looks good -- there's simply no reason not to nominate the best candidate. Especially if you add to the mix the chance that NOT nominating him could be a more likely disaster for the Democrats.

this is the only option left. It's the one that hasn't been tried.
— Xtrix
Do you honestly think Sanders will be able to fulfill his promises, or is that beside the point - i.e. you just want someone with the right set of concerns? — Relativist

It will be an uphill battle without the Senate and state legislators. The establishment media will probably continue to attack on all fronts, etc. So no, I don't think every aspect of the agenda will be implemented. And that's too bad, as it would be good for the country right now.

So you're right, it is beside the point to a degree. But on the other hand, there's plenty he WILL be able to achieve with just executive orders alone. He'll have the pulpit to discuss things with the American public, it'll create much-needed debate over policies that matter, etc.

There's simply no alternative at this point. Trump isn't even a consideration for any rational human being.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. — christian2017

I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?

If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.

It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently.

If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about. — fishfry

Needless to say I agree, except with the cynicism. I'm more optimistic in that case...or maybe more "hopeful." Time will tell.

That's right: As I call her, She Who Must Not Be Indicted: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone. — fishfry

Now here I really disagree. This is wild speculation and I see no evidence for it. It's true that Bloomberg is throwing a lot of money around, but that it's part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? Come on.

I will say this is great entertainment. Suddenly there's excitement on the Dem side. Liz destroying Bloomie so that Bernie can surge. Could that be part of a plan too? Maybe she's hoping to be his Veep. It would be a great ticket. Not one I'd vote for, but it would be a hell of an interesting election. — fishfry

Not one you'd vote for? Given the alternative and the importance of this election? That's mind boggling. I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump. One believes in climate change, the other doesn't. That's enough of a reason right there.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.
— Xtrix

I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain? — Nobeernolife

Yes. Climate change is an existential risk to the human species. The Trump administration has appointed people with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry to head the EPA, rolled back (or is trying to roll back) regulations on carbon emission standards, including methane. Trump has himself claimed climate change is a "hoax" from the Chinese and has repeatedly stated he wants to bring back coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. He's approved pipelines, weakened environmental reviews, and pulled out of the Paris Accord (making us the only country not in it). I could go on. There's plenty of documentation of this if you're interested -- no need to take my word for it. Trump isn't trying to hide it, because he believes there isn't even a problem to begin with.

So here we have an existential threat that's being exacerbated by the policies and ignorance of this administration. Thus, the administration on this issue alone is a clear existential threat to the country and the world.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.

Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. — christian2017

There it is again, the magic word: spectrum. Brilliant. How complex you are.

Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors. — christian2017

What a bunch of bullshit. Why is it always the most simpleminded people who attack others for being simple?

You're the only one sounding like a witch doctor here. If you want to bore us with an explanation of what the hell you mean by "spectrum" and how this applies to free markets, go ahead. Otherwise you're comments are irrelevant.

So I'll repeat, again: free markets don't exist, nor have they ever existed. Interjecting engineering gibberish, without any explanation or elaboration, just shows who the "witch doctor" is.

Say something relevant or peddle your busllhit somewhere else.

Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect). — christian2017

And, once again, you miss the point. I'll make it as concrete as I can: the very idea of a free market is nonsense. It hasn't happened, it won't happen, it won't come close to happening, we shouldn't be trying to make it happen in any way. It's a fantasy. It's not on a spectrum, it's not approaching a "threshold," or whatever other vague nonsense you want to use. We should abandon any talk about it because it is, and always has been, complete nonsense. Useful nonsense, yes -- keeping people confused with this concept keeps the status quo, which is a state-capitalist system favoring concentrations of power.

If I thought Sanders could win, then I would be really hopeful. But unfortunately, I think it's going to be a replay of Johnson vs Corbyn, or Nixon vs McGovern. — Wayfarer

There are many rational people, like you, in exactly this camp. They like Bernie, or at least agree more with him than other candidates, or at the very least would prefer him over Trump -- but don't think he can win. That's OK, for now.

Bernie's grassroots support will carry him, and he will therefore continue to build steam. When that happens, and he gets the nomination, and people like yourself see the passionate base of support for him, I think you'll change your mind. Unlike, say, with Clinton, who did not have a large base of enthusiastic, grassroots support. She was a boring, mediocre, establishment centrist. I imagine people like you either held their nose and voted for her anyway because the Republicans put up the likes of Trump, or else stayed home. I just don't see that happening with a Sanders nomination.

The question you ask is, what is the evidence that I think makes the DNC screwing Bernie the most likely outcome. Well, the same people did the same thing to him in 2016. And they changed the rules to let Bloomie in the debate, while Tulsi, who has grassroots support, remains shut out. — fishfry

That's fair, but all of that is minor compared to '16. Sanders was a relatively unknown candidate at the beginning, came out of nowhere, and so they didn't quite know how to handle him. They thought they could just sweep him aside without much backlash. They were obviously wrong.

It's four years later and almost everyone knows what happened. You have Trump tweeting about it at this point. And Sanders is now the clear frontrunner, so there's no excuse of "Well Hillary won fair and square, the so-called Revolution didn't show up!" and so forth. It's very different -- this time, the DNC is aware that everyone is watching closely and will be livid if there are any shenanigans. The media is slightly better at covering it as well this time around, as they can't ignore Sanders' numbers. They aren't stupid, they must see this.

You could be right, in the end. But I both think and hope that you're wrong.

Perhaps there's a learning disability involved here.

Let me be the mean one and tell you for your own good: your entire narrative, which you continue to try to fit all evidence to the contrary neatly into, is wrong. It's stupid. It's obsolete.

Grow up.

Bloomberg is going to be nominated no matter who wins the most votes. — frank

Not a chance.

Go Google a little more and find a more thoughtful opinion you can tout as your own.

Interesting. Now just wait until Frank finds the more thoughtful answer.

AP is already projecting Sanders wins Nevada. NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc., are all following suit now. As far as I see only 4% is reporting, but I guess they know what they're doing?

Looks like Bernie is winning big based on the little that's accounted for. I guess we're all in for another week of op-eds saying that same exact thing as last week: how he's the worst one to go against Trump and how none of his plans will happen.

And the voters will continue to steamroll over these pathetic, professional "opinion-givers."

Where will they go?! Where??!

Consult Google to pick out the true and final answer -- i.e., the one you like.

Found it: labor unions want to keep the benefits they've bargained for. That's the main reason moderate politicians backed off from it. — frank

Yeah, one labor union in Nevada accounts for 30% of Democrats' opinions about M4A. Glad a quick Google search did the trick.

Go back to reading the NY Post and stop wasting everyone's time pretending to be interested in learning anything.

It's the 30 percent of Democrats I was asking about. I was hoping you'd have a thoughtful answer. — frank

The 30 percent of Democrats don't fall under "voters"?

Quite frankly, given the media coverage of M4A, and the general lack of knowledge about it, I'm shocked it's polling as well as it is not just with Democrats but nationally (51% favorability).

A good percentage of Americans can't identify the US on a world map. What do you suppose accounts for this? Thoughtful answers, please.

↪frank Do you mean voters or politicians?

If politicians, because their corporate donors tell them to be, because medicare for all weakens corporate power and threatens many big (medical and insurance) corporations’ profits.

If voters, because those politicians and the media tell them that medicare for all will bankrupt the country and implicitly make them pay taxes through the roof and so bankrupt them, and make them wait in literal lines outside the hospital while dying of cancer instead of... not getting any treatment at all, like they probably do now.

You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests. — Pfhorrest

This is excellent.

I'm drawing a blank on why. Because it's not feasible? Because it's counter to American ideals? What do you think? — frank

Because they probably don't even know what it means. Which is yet another reason to push for it -- gets everyone talking about it and familiar with it.

I say it because it's nonsense
— Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point. — christian2017

What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence.

All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.
— Xtrix

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats. — christian2017

I really don't see the relevance of that remark.

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? — christian2017

I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.

Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with.

In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. — christian2017

China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters.

Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution. — christian2017

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.

I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.

Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. — christian2017

The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has.

An argument that has been given for decades.
— Xtrix

The first American to "give" it was Benjamin Franklin — frank

I'm laughing at this comment. I realize it's not meant to be funny, but I guess that's partly why it's funny.

I worked with Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was a friend of mine. You sir are no Ben Franklin.

who edited Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to avoid pissing off the south while they were trying to run a revolt. Do the revolt first, then worry about slavery.

The next famous giver of the argument was Frederick Douglass, who argued that women's rights should be put aside to pursue black citizenship post Civil War.

It's an argument that makes sense and deserves more than "it's old." — frank

It's not that "it's old," it's that it's stupid, easy, boring, unimaginative, and shortsighted. It's been used over and over again to essentially keep the state of affairs within predetermined limits. Ask yourself: who determines the limits? And why do we accept them?

Why is Medicare for All radical, for example? Why can't we do it? People like you remind me of those nobles in Braveheart, always saying how impossible and reckless it is to do this and that. And you continually miss the point: even if we lose, even if it doesn't get through -- the very attempt changes things, and makes it even easier to get something else passed that we were all advocating to begin with. It's like the door-in-the-face compliance technique. Suddenly, after fighting this war, the battle over "fixing" medicare isn't so dire. If we settle for just fixing it, and demanding nothing more, then it's no wonder McConnell and others are getting away with setting the stage for "cutting entitlements." They're coming for social security, medicare, medicaid, and anything to do with the New Deal. Don't be fooled.

MFA is a distraction from the more pressing issue: save Medicare period. — frank

Yawn. People have been screaming for decades about saving social security, saving medicare. It's going bankrupt! Etc.

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support.
— Xtrix

Sure, but it's not going to happen. — frank

It will happen. But fine, take that position. Gives you a real sense of superiority. How incredibly realistic you are! A real straight-shooter!

You keep working on fixing medicare. That strategy has been a real winner so far. Way to advance the zeitgeist.

Shooting for the moon when we cant even get a ride downtown just undermines our ability to get anything done. — frank

An argument that has been given for decades.

I say the contrary: shoot for the moon. Who's to say what's "radical" and what isn't? Any of these things can be done. It makes sense, and it's what people want. Look at how far we came with marijuana, gay marriage, etc. Just a few years ago, there were people quite like you saying the same old stuff --- it's impossible, don't ask for it, settle for compromise.

Things have swung so far right in this country it's time for a shift to the left. At the very least it will help maintain balance in and stretch what's considered a "limit."

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support. Look at the plan in depth. John Oliver had a good segment on it, actually. If you can get by the silly humor, it's fairly well-researched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k

Yeah, because those Republicans do such a great job on a state level. Everyone is dying to live in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Try to grow beyond your simplistic red/blue dichotomy view of politics. You'll find the world is a complex place.

The state of California generally recognizes that there is a homelessness crisis here... finally, after I’ve been screaming about it for well over a decade, ever since I first had to pay for my own housing, nearly couldn’t (spending a month homeless soon thereafter) despite making a median income already, did the math to figure out how long it would take to get free of that danger entirely, and realized the answer is “possibly never”. I’ve also been watching my elderly mother wavering on the edge of homelessness for years. I’ve been screaming about how can nobody see this doom coming for themselves and why isn’t anybody doing anything about it for all that time, and only now that said doom is actually starting to befall large numbers of people are they finally starting to acknowledge the problem. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. I forgot you lived in California -- I believe you mentioned it before.

Interesting you cite this article. He's actually arguing that while Bernie is like McGovern in many ways, the context is so very different as to make the comparison essentially meaningless. Nixon was polling very well against McGovern, and was in general a popular president --65% approval rating prior to watergate. Trump is nowhere near those numbers, Americans are not feeling the "great economy" in real terms - no matter how many times the conservative AND liberal media rams this down their throats, and Bernie has a better campaign strategy.

Hillary is Humphrey, the centrist beating back the challenge from Bernie in 2016; and Bernie, if he wins, would be McGovern. — fishfry

Except there are stark differences, despite the similarities.

Atlantic ran a good article about this. For those without access, here's a snippet:

No comparison of Sanders and McGovern is sufficient without acknowledging that McGovern’s campaign in the summer of 1972 was a one-of-a-kind disaster. At the national convention, McGovern faced widespread opposition from major Democratic figures, including future President Jimmy Carter. After securing the nomination in a messy war for delegates, he struggled to find a prominent Democrat to serve as his running mate. Senator Ted Kennedy, widely seen as the most popular choice, rejected multiple offers. When the convention finally agreed on Senator Thomas Eagleton, it was so late that McGovern famously didn’t take the stage to deliver his acceptance speech until after midnight on the East Coast. And this was all for naught: Within days, it was reported that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for severe depression, and party officials urged him to quit the race. Eagleton withdrew from the ticket, the first vice-presidential candidate to ever do so, and McGovern went into late August down one running mate and 20 points in the polls.

If Bernie shows up in Milwaukee with a plurality but not a majority of the votes, then the superdelegates will have their way. — fishfry

I agree with most to your post, but I wasn't being facetious: if you know how the process works, what evidence is there that suggests this is most likely to happen? I realize the DNC doesn't want Bernie, but Bernie will end up with most of the delegates in the end. I have a hard time believing that the DNC is stupid enough, given the delegate numbers, to simply hand it over to Bloomberg. That's a disaster.

You could be right, but I need more. Bloomberg plotting against Sanders we knew from the beginning.

You seem overly worried about homelessness. It's not an irrational concern, but in my view if you're fairly intelligent and resourceful enough, you can make your way -- even if that means working the menial jobs. There are a lot of ways to survive in this country. The point that it's getting harder to merely survive, let alone to live by the same standards we had 60 years ago, is obviously true.

I was talking about income there, as apparently the mean personal income (which I approximately make) falls at around the 75th percentile of personal incomes, i.e. 75% of people make less than that. — Pfhorrest

Well good for you. :)

What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family.
— Xtrix

You need a home big enough for two people to live in if they're going to be a family, even if they're not planning on having kids (which we're not). — Pfhorrest

A home in the sense of some kind of dwelling place, yes. Not necessarily a house.

We're scraping by because she lives with family on super-discounted rent and I own a tiny one-room mobile home in a shitty trailer park that's also rent-controlled; when either of us visits the other, we can at most bring a backpack full of stuff to the other's place, and even that just sits on the floor in the way and constantly needs to be moved to get about, so there's no way we could actually live together on a long-term basis unless one of us was just living out of a backpack indefinitely. — Pfhorrest

I'm sure your situation is shared by many Americans. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?

An apartment big enough for two would leave us scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck, not saving anything for the future, and so when we're too old to have paychecks to pay toward that rent anymore, would leave us out on the street. The interest alone on a mortgage on the cheapest available house in the area would be just as bad, never mind paying down the principle. — Pfhorrest

My wife and I still rent and have been postponing buying a house. Mortgaging a house is in many ways the better alternative because you are at least paying down the mortgage and building equity as opposed to simply giving away money every month and owning nothing.

So I hear you on all of this, but my point was that none of this in itself should be an end in itself -- weather owning a home or saving money or having a retirement plan or making sure you're secured when you're old, etc. I think all of that is fine, but that the emphasis, the stress, that has been placed on these objectives is and has been out of whack for a long time.

It's simply taken for granted that having a billionaire dollars makes you "successful," for example. I hear this all the time in reference to Bloomberg. But I ask: why? Maybe in the domain of business, where the game is "won" by accumulating more and more profit, does this metric make sense, and even there this is arguable. But applied to a person's life generally is absurd. Moreover, what's frustrating is that my fellow countrymen will take this for granted while at the same time professing agreement with the proverbial "money can't buy me love" and "money is the root of all evil"-type stuff.

Anyway, I wasn't meaning originally to contradict your point, but to emphasize that things were even worse than you're already making them out to be, to double down on your original point. — Pfhorrest

I understand. So you're right, of course. The "American Dream' has indeed become more and more elusive, especially since about the 1970s. But even if we were in the 1950s again, my point would be the same: that our highest aspirations as Americans, in the form of the American Dream of a steady, well-paid job, a house and car, and a wife and family, is itself a mistake. Not that it's morally or financially wrong to want a family or a house, but that the ideal itself is a mistake and is given too high a priority.

I think Warren has had a bit of bad luck in the sense of running alongside someone with similar ideology but also more experience and already existing, large base of supporters. That's one strike. Another strike is simply being a woman. As correct, intelligent, articulate, and confident as she is, I think there's a bias about both her looks and her delivery that works against her in much the same way it did for Hillary. I don't think that's fair, but I see it all around me and feel it in myself at times -- seems too calculated.

But the main reason is just getting less of a share of the progressive vote, and that's because of Sanders. For me, it's because he's been around longer and in that time has been far more consistent in his ideology and has been therefore consistently on the right side of history, even when the choices were extremely unpopular even within his own "party."