[jswizzy]

I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President. As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people anymore.

[krapp]

You realize Trump is just leading working class people around by the nose though, right?

[scriptkiddy]

I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it.

However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically.

First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class.

Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it.

Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs, universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat gasp socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada.

Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests.

All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers. Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be a joke.

[DanCarvajal]

>Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests.

That scares me the most, I want a pragmatic president, not an ideologue.

[scriptkiddy]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the ideas aren't harmful.

[anotherbrownguy]

>higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class.

No, the budget cuts do not adversely affect the working class. The working class collectively pays more taxes than the richest because working class makes a much larger portion of the population. That money is being wasted on education which is useless as far as getting employment after it is concerned and other government programs let the corrupt politicians decide who gets the business. Tax cuts on the rich doesn't affect the amount of money collected significantly and in addition to that encourages the lower income people to justify earning more.

>Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party

Even the Democratic party was not in favor of Sanders because socialist and communist parties in failed countries, the DNC understands that socialism doesn't really work. They pretend that it does and might say it for votes, but seeing someone who would actually go ahead and try to do it would make things much worse for the country. As evil as Hillary is, everyone should be thankful that she made sure Sanders didn't get a chance.

>Sanders was the working class' best hope. >He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets

Yeah right... because if you want to help people, you should take their money forcefully and then give it to a slow, inefficient bureaucratic system which will solve all their problems.

>However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada.

No. All big healthcare programs around the world are costing a bigger chunk of the budget every year and have thus far been sustainable because most of the healthcare innovation happens outside of them i.e. in the US, which they simply import.

>Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office.

Except for the corruption he is being investigated for.

>He legitimately believed in his ideas

Having no experience in anything else outside of mindless activism and politics makes one delusional, so while I also think he legitimately believed in his ideas, I can't see it as a good thing.

[scriptkiddy]

> No, the budget cuts do not adversely affect the working class. The working class collectively pays more taxes than the richest because working class makes a much larger portion of the population.

Well, yeah. The wealthy benefit from all the things their taxes fund even more than the working class does. The wealthy pay disproportionately little considering that their wealth is built upon the infrastructure that the working class pays for. Consider that a wealthy person cannot make any money if their workers are not able to get to work because of poor infrastructure. Consider that the wealthy benefit from public education training their workers.

> That money is being wasted on education which is useless as far as getting employment after it is concerned and other government programs let the corrupt politicians decide who gets the business.

I'm trying to parse this. I'm not sure what you mean, but you seem to be claiming that education is "useless"? You go on to say that education does not help people get jobs. I mean, it's clear that education has a large role to play in employment rates. Besides that, the goal of education is not to ensure people are employed; it is to ensure that there is a well educated populace capable of making sane, rational decisions. I'm not going to try and tackle the last part of your statement here because I have no clue what you're trying to say.

> Tax cuts on the rich doesn't affect the amount of money collected significantly and in addition to that encourages the lower income people to justify earning more.

"forces the lower income people to justify earning more"? I apologize if you're not a native English speaker, but I'm really having trouble trying to make sense of what you're saying here. Why do lower income people have to "justify" earning more? We live in a society where the amount of effort you put in generally determines what you get out of life. No one has to "justify" earning more except for maybe trust fund babies and people who inherit large corporations.

> Even the Democratic party was not in favor of Sanders because socialist and communist parties in failed countries, the DNC understands that socialism doesn't really work. They pretend that it does and might say it for votes, but seeing someone who would actually go ahead and try to do it would make things much worse for the country. As evil as Hillary is, everyone should be thankful that she made sure Sanders didn't get a chance.

I see a lot of people parrot this exact point all over the place but no one ever offers any logical argument as to why. No one can explain how socialist policies/programs would ruin the U.S. They just say it and then move on assuming its some sort of universal truth.

> Yeah right... because if you want to help people, you should take their money forcefully and then give it to a slow, inefficient bureaucratic system which will solve all their problems.

You mean like the manner in which the U.S. currently operates? We have the ability to build a post-scarcity society but most of those who control the means of production are too selfish to see past their own noses.

> No. All big healthcare programs around the world are costing a bigger chunk of the budget every year and have thus far been sustainable because most of the healthcare innovation happens outside of them i.e. in the US, which they simply import.

[citation needed]

Seriously though, I'm gonna need some numbers on that before I take it at face value. Even if this is true, I'm sure there are some factors that you are willfully ignoring.

> Except for the corruption he is being investigated for.

Got a source for that? The only thing I found was something about sanders paying his wife and daughter to work on his senate campaign from 2002-2004. A total of $90,000 dollars for his wife over two years and $65,000 dollars for his daughter over four years. Broken down, that's a $45,000/yr salary for his wife and a $16,250/yr salary for his daughter. Seems to actually be a rather low salary for campaign officials. And a bunch of unconfirmed reports about Bernie's wife overstating donations for the college she worked at in order to secure a pledge from the catholic diocese. The accusations seem to be levied by a formal Trump campaign official as well. Could be a smear campaign. Doesn't seem like much is coming of it. On top of this, none of the articles I read offered any credible sources whatsoever. There's just not enough there for me to draw any reasonable conclusion. This is the closest thing to a credible source that I found: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-f...

> Having no experience in anything else outside of mindless activism and politics makes one delusional, so while I also think he legitimately believed in his ideas, I can't see it as a good thing.

Why do you jump from "believing in ideas" to "mindless activism"? Why can nobody ever see the middle ground. For most people it's walways black or white. Well, sometimes, the correct answer is gray.

[anotherbrownguy]

>The wealthy benefit from all the things their taxes fund even more than the working class does.

Someone is not wealthy by coincidence. To gain wealth, you have to create a product or a service that people are willing to pay for i.e. people value the product/service more than the money that they have. Otherwise, they wouldn't be parting away from their money to get that product or service.

>The wealthy pay disproportionately little considering that their wealth is built upon the infrastructure that the working class pays for.

Not necessarily. Bill Gates didn't make a lot of money because government made computers for him. Mark Zukerberg did not make a lot of money because the government gave them the world wide internet network. Apple didn't make a lot of money because the government gave them something. If you look at the any money making businesses, they most likely made it despite of the government not because of it.

>I'm not sure what you mean, but you seem to be claiming that education is "useless"?

It's a huge waste of money for what it is.

>You go on to say that education does not help people get jobs. I mean, it's clear that education has a large role to play in employment rates.

Not necessarily. Most companies fall back to education for selection only when they don't find people with experience in the industry unless it is enforced by government regulations for people to get a degree, a degree is not very valuable.

>Besides that, the goal of education is not to ensure people are employed; it is to ensure that there is a well educated populace capable of making sane, rational decisions.

Such "goals" have been misused by totalitarian regimes to instill their brainwashing to the general populace so that the establishment can remain in power... and it is not untrue in the US given that most campuses are full of politics, sometimes even when it shouldn't be.

>I'm not going to try and tackle the last part of your statement here because I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Here is what I am trying to get at: when the government is in charge of healthcare for example, even the "socialist" countries like Norway and China have learnt that government is too incompetent to actually own and manage hospitals and insurance companies. So, they usually give this to one or more privately run companies. Which companies they pick for this is too much prone to corruption because when this happens, the company getting the contract generally gets a monopoly status and a huge number of customers by default. Even if the government doesn't pick a particular company, it can create regulations that can weed out small competitors eventually leading to a monopoly, and not necessarily the company that deserves to be one.

>We live in a society where the amount of effort you put in generally determines what you get out of life.

Exactly! So, if you tax someone heavily above a certain bracket, people making just below the bracket do not have a high enough incentive to put in any more effort, because they get to keep a small amount of what they make above that. So, people may be prone to stagnate. When they do, they are not contributing to the economy as much as they could otherwise have. On top of that, people willing to make more could move their businesses away to other countries when possible, doing further harm to the economy.

>No one can explain how socialist policies/programs would ruin the U.S.

Socialist programs harm everyone. Let me try to explain in the simplest possible way. When a politician promises to give things for "free", the government has to buy it from someone. But the government doesn't have any money of its own. It makes all the money by collecting taxes from the very people it says it's giving for free. So, whatever free thing it says it is giving away, it will have to stop spending money somewhere else or raise taxes. So, people are still paying. However, not directly anymore but via a middle man... but not just any other middle man. Government policies and programs react very slowly and poorly to market demands. It is made up of insane number of bureaucratic layers which are very difficult to maintain. So, additional companies spawn up to help maintain these processes. Meanwhile, the related industries have to follow strict regulations imposed by the government for "quality of service". More useless businesses then pop up to try to get around these regulations and laws. So, without insane amount of capital, nobody can hope to enter the industry because you have to pay insane amount just to keep it running. As a result, many existing companies gain monopolies and lose any incentive to do any better.

So, as a result, people may end up paying more for the same service, except it has no competition and shows no incentives for improving it.

>We have the ability to build a post-scarcity society but most of those who control the means of production are too selfish to see past their own noses.

Exactly! This is because it is virtually impossible for anyone to enter certain industries because of insane number of regulatory hell as I mentioned earlier.

>[citation needed] >Seriously though, I'm gonna need some numbers on that before I take it at face value. Even if this is true, I'm sure there are some factors that you are willfully ignoring.

All governments publish their budgets and expenditure for everyone to see. It's not very hard to look up if you are interested.

>Why do you jump from "believing in ideas" to "mindless activism"? Why can nobody ever see the middle ground. For most people it's walways black or white. Well, sometimes, the correct answer is gray.

Because anyone who knows anything about how the world operates can clearly see how mindless and simple his ideas are. There is nothing profound he has to say. "We need less corruption and more government programs" is the gist of everything he has to offer.