Remember when Hilary and Bill had over 43 people killed while in office, that we know of?! She needs no spot as a canidate. What she and Bill need are prison numbers, and probably death row slots.

I think Bernie is one of the best candidates the democrats have brought up. I think he should be the one going to the very end.

janus : I agree with you there. The media lets the democrats go with waaay too much shady stuff. But if a republican says anything stupid, it is unforgivable. And this is only if the stupid thing distracts them from faking how evil, racist, and bigoted republicans are for opposing the media donors-I mean the Democrat Party.

A user of this : I have no love for her, but just look at the treatment Sarah Palin got in 2008. An even though I was not following politics as closely under W Bush, I am pretty sure Condolezza Rice was not praised much during her term.

Now, compare that to the media treatment of Madeleine Albright, who said that killing all those children in Iraq (Kosovo?) was "worth it" (almost verbatim). 

And I give it to you - although I despise every single economic idea he has - that Bernie Sanders is constant. I do not believe he has flipped flopped much and is consistent promoting his agenda, however ludicrous it is.

janus : You keep calling it ludicrous yet I still haven't seen you prove it.Everything you did bring up against him has been shot down.When the experts side with Bernie(about 170 in fact),chances are he's right(It's similar ot science,if the majority of them agree on something,chances are there's something for it).

www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/18/1471553/-170-Top-Economists-endorse-the-Sanders-Wall-Street-Reform-Plan

I don't feel there is much point in arguing about it further.

That being said,I do agree with you on the hypocrisy of the liberal media.

I have disproved what Sanders said Numerous times; you simply dismissed it without reading it (I read what you published). Unless you grasp the concepts of opportunity cost, marginal cost, supply and demand and incentives, there is nothing I can do to help you

You call me biased, and yet you keep quoting socialist sources like daily Kos. How ironic... Finally, appealing to authority does not science make. 100 years ago experts "agreed" that continents were not moving; in the 1950s "experts" agreed that we could control economic cycles with the (now-disproved) Philipps Curve

janus : That's a load of crap.I refuted your points & gave sources backing up my claims,while you were the one dismissing & ignoring what I put.Don't make me laugh,you act like you know more than experts who have actually studied economics.Don't give me that nonsense,I gave more sources than just Daily Kos.I'm going with people who know what they talking about.The way you act is as if one were to assume they know more about biology than the majority of biologists.Not enough had been presented at the time to convince them that they were moving,so that argument doesn't work.We know more now than we did in the past.

janus : Living in a country with a socialist system I can tell you first hand that socialism does not fail. I don't think it's fair to make comparisons with the countries you listed considering the circumstances surrounding them and they weren't exactly in a stable condition to begin with and having a very strong welfare system there is no one that pretty much lives on welfare because they have no "incentive" to work that simply doesn't happen. Welfare is enough to survive definitely but it's not exactly a life style that will allow you too many luxuries, even so you do need to take steps to keep receiving welfare checks, if you don't at least try getting a job or an education you will lose it. Welfare is a safety net for people who are actually trying to make a living not something that means you can just give on contributing to society.

Taxes are high but the money you save in the long run makes up for it. In your case that isn't really as relevant because Bernie unlike how we have it in Sweden, in most cases is trying to raise taxes for high income individuals or on the financial sector, which even then after having read his plan on financing these changes doesn't seem like that big of a change.

 Whether you feel socialism is a good system or not it can definitely work. I'm not going to claim it's a system that will solve all problems because frankly there is none that will but I'd definitely say it's the best option in my opinion.

As for who I'd like to see get the nomination obviously I'd say Sanders. It's probably the first time I can personally say I like a US presidential candidate more than the candidates of my own country. Coming from a country that employs many or similar ideas to the ones he's talking about I know things like tuition free schools, and single payer health care can work if done properly and aren't far fetched ideas at all.

Hillary Clinton is probably the biggest flip flopper there is. Seemingly changing her position back and forth every few years. How she tries to attack Sanders on the whole NRA voting thing and being inconsistent when it comes to gun control when she herself has been inconsistent on nearly every issue is astonishing to me and she really seems like she's doing anything she can to persuade voters. She's also as much of an establishment candidate as you can get, I don't get how people think someone who is primarily funded by wall street is going to do much of anything to combat it.

Now does that mean I think Bernie will get the nomination? Honestly I'd like to think so and there's a chance definitely as polling will show and in the event that he did he'd likely have a very good chance at gaining the presidency but considering media is doing everything they can to make sure Hillary gets the nomination and not Bernie by constantly trying to show him in a negative light and trying to make Hillary seem like the clear choice it really seems unlikely. I actually think a part of this is because Bernie isn't more aggressive, I mean I'm not saying he should go out of his way like Hillary does but considering how many things there are he could call her out on I think that could be what is needed to make some of her supporters think if supporting Hillary really is the right choice.

Heads up, personal view on this whole deal.

None should.
Politicians rival each other, but are part of the same political upbringing.
The tactic is to take sides, and to direct those opposing sides towards the same direction.

When you look at history, political groups are responsible for instigating poverty and war.
When you look at todays events, the actions of our goverments become transparently against us.

There's a lot of people who hope for change, and will vote because that gives us a sense of choice, allowing for politicians to hold onto the reigns for longer.

It's a complicated issue of people being misinformed and mislead, busy with the present, while politics has an impact on the future, after we've gone.

Zlinqx : With the huge exception of Norway, no country on the planet has reached the level of wealth and prosperity the United States has - one can cast doubt of Chinese figures. Why? because at least until the 20 th century government intervened little in the economy and applied the laissez-faire principles. I KNOW there was slavery, but the largest economic boom happened AFTER the Civil War.

While I MIGHT be opened to some sort of TEMPORARY welfare to help people get back on their feet, its present structure is highly wasteful and does NOT encourage getting back to work. According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, unemployment lasting over 40 weeks still has not gone back to its 2009 levels when Obama took office. Also, this study shows that in many countries and states, people are better off on welfare than working: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/work-versus-welfare-trade-europe. At least we agree that welfare recipients must start looking for work.

Also, you ALWAYS feel the effects of higher taxes, albeit mostly indirectly. One of Frédéric Bastiat's last works was "That which is seen, That which is unseen"; basically it said that economic policies ALWAYS have "hidden" repercussions that "true" economists must consider. Taxing is one example; with a progressive income tax you are basically taxing effort. So when rates get too prohibitive, people work less, do it "illegally" or move their assets elsewhere. Or they push tax credits to their limits; Abba took their costumes as tax deductions in order to pay less taxes. Although it was never "proved" the Laffer Curve is very real.

And no, socialism can not work. Without a price system, no one can make rational decisions as to what project should be considered and how it should be conducted. Just look at Venezuela, where basically everything has been nationalized. There are severe shortages of basic commodities like toilet paper and food. Also take a look in industrialized countries and look at prices. They mostly go down in less regulated sectors like electronics and are steady or go up in highly regulated ones like education and health care.

janus : The wealth of the US becomes much less impressive when you factor in the debt most of which is owned by China. Also consider the average quality of life which isn't as high as that of many other western countries, your education system, health care system, infrastructure etc and the strong economic standing doesn't do much to actually benefit the people. Even so consider that Norway is a socialist country as well directly disproving your point about socialism never working.

Welfare isn't exactly for enticing people to get back to work though it can help in some cases like with getting an education, the government also helps with finding work opportunities here. Like I said to keep getting welfare you actually have to be making efforts to get back to work or getting an education so you can't sit by idly leeching off the government because then you won't receive checks. While there are some shortcomings in our welfare systems they are ones that can be fixed and are more due to administrative complications. On a separate note I find it kind of odd how you criticize another user in this thread for using socialist sources when the link you just provided is a source that is known for being very libertarian leaning.

Tax evasion is already very common in the US despite having fairly low tax rates compared to a lot of western countries so increasing taxes won't make much of a difference unless the amount you increase it by is truly extreme and with what Bernie Sanders proposes I don't think that's the case. In stead more should be done to combat tax evasion and crack down on those moving their assets to so called tax havens.
The effort a lot of big companies put in is often minimal compared to the payout. 

Venezuela is a bad example considering the circumstances like I said- their system seems more on the extreme side left wing socialism which I wouldn't advocate and I'd agree is a bad idea. Socialism at least the kind Bernie Sanders proposes and the one we have here in Sweden everything isn't and shouldn't be nationalized. It is about offering strong public alternatives that are open to everyone of necessary services like education and healthcare. The only thing that is entirely nationalized here is the selling of hard liquor and that isn't exactly something that damages the economy as a whole. 

I think Hilary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination. All Sanders is free health care, free this or free that. Clinton pretty much wants to America as a whole again, instead of making it look like a joke. She'll definitely beat Trump for that.

DukeofPidgeot : Sanders isn't about free stuff,he's about using tax dollars to be more beneficial to the 99%.Clinton is nothing more than a
demagogue,basing her stances on polling rather than her actual beliefs.& when it isn't that,it's often what her backers want.Clinton is part of why America is a joke,because of the corruption.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clintons-top-corporate-donors-are-among-the-most-hated-companies-in-america/

https://americaisajoke.wordpress.com/

Anyone EXCEPT Clinton. She is a liar,she is ineffective,she is just a puppet. She could not do her previous job as Secretary of State. Benghazi happened on her watch. She had a f--king aneurysm and had to step down. If she was so inept at a lesser job,why give her the chance at screwing up even more?!?!

Definitely Bernie. Not only he has been consistent with his policies and true to his word for literal decades (virtually unheard of from American politicians!), but he doesn't try to suck up to anyone and sticks to his goals. Even if you don't fully agree with him, you have got to admire that he's the most honest candidate we've had in probably centuries.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an inconsistent liar who constantly changes her position to try and kiss up to the voter base for easy votes. She has had a lot of unpleasant opinions in her past, and was actually a lot more right-leaning before she thought she'd have a better chance running for democrat. Even feminist Tumblr makes fun of how much of a flip-flopper she is, and they were her biggest chance of getting in with the "Vote for me, I'm a woman!" shtick.

janus:
Dude, I've read the entire argument, and all the while you were hollering about Matt ignoring you, you've been the one consistently ignoring all of his counter-arguments and proof. Instead, you kept throwing more links for him to refute and kept projecting about how he's foolish and ignorant. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make you the winner, it embarrasses you in front of the audience.

Also, calm down with your knee-jerk red scare paranoia. Just because Bernie wants to introduce some policies resembling some of those in socialism doesn't automatically turn it into pure socialism, it's still capitalism, just with some improvement. Before you start hollering about liberals, I'm independent. Both sides are right and wrong about different things, but a lot of the louder members of both are also stubborn that they're 100% right and can't possibly be wrong.

RDay13 :
Not a good idea- Despite her claims, Hillary isn't very feminist and constantly changes her mind on such subjects. She'd make a bad representative. That would be a hilarious irony, our first woman president being a lousy feminist, but I'm more concerned for the state of the country.

mike345 :
You kidding me? Trump is awful. Even the republicans hate him, and that's saying something! I'm honestly wondering where he's getting any of this support from. What, were there an unseen army of skinheads who thought all the previous candidates weren't extreme and racist enough for them? I don't know much about Rand Paul, but considering he also gets plenty of hate from both wings... Honestly, most of the airtime those two get are either paid for by them (as they're both filthy rich 1%ers), or are about how much of a bad idea they are.

Joneithevius : Yeah, I have changed my views since I posted, lol. I am not for Hillary anymore. I am also rooting for Bernie to win it. 

I am 100% for Bernie. I'm not going to argue politics with anyone, especially seeing how this thread turned out. But I agree with his policies and believe he honestly has the best intentions for the people, at least between the options presented. That being said I doubt he'll get the nomination with as many private interest backers Hillary has and seeing how many polling locations have been manipulated in one way or another to favor Hillary...