You got it right; he'll sock it to the middle class.
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
What concerns me most about US politics is the drift (gallop?) towards a super-rich oligarchy presiding over an ever-increasing underclass dependent on govt handouts and a shrinking middle class, upon whom real economic prosperity depends.
I think everything will remain the same if Bernie Sanders were to become President. Many politicians running for President will promise this and that but once they get sworn in, those promises disappear.
Not quite the same. He would sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
No one has pulled that stunt as outrageously as MAObama and, hey, his key qualities are he's a commie, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, LIAR (in MY humble opinion and with all due respect!) Maybe there is a reason the Middle Class is crumbling to dust under Obama? Imagine that; Alinsky did. Read "Rules for Radicals".
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
That would be an astronomical "if." The best he can do is state uncomfortable things that Hillary will have to answer IMO.
As a Republican......I don't want Trump, any more than I want the rest of the Republican slate. What I DO enjoy watching in Trump is that he has the balls to say uncomfortable things that other people are afraid to say, but who silently agree, to whatever degree that may be. His strong suit would be in business and the economy. Foreign policy would be a bit dicey.
MY greatest dream in this total election circus of the absurds for either party would have been former Marine Corps General James Mattis. That sum bitch would straighten some shit out asap...and I mean asap. Clear, concise, intelligent, gifted....and he loves our Country. Here's hoping for my pipe dream of a write in victory.
meanwhile, the wheel goes round and round.........where it stops...........
That would be true, if Bernie were legitimately running against Hillary, but he's not---
all he's done in the debates is kiss her hind quarters.
His purposes in running are to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the party, and in return he expects to get a cabinet position (maybe Health, Education and Welfare) in which he can hand out a lot of free stuff at taxpayer expense.
But one thing that was funny about the Sanders-Clinton debates:
At first, Bernie did nothing but kiss her hind quarters, but as the primaries proceeded, he found that she was much more unpopular than he initially thought, and then he started getting tough with her in the later debates, thinking he really had a chance to win (which he did, if the DNC fix hadn't been in).
I think something similar happened in the 2008 Democratic primaries. It's my hunch that Obama didn't expect to beat Hillary, but only entered to get name recognition for a later try at the Presidency, and was as surprised as anyone that he ultimately won, late in the game.
@OtherTink: Okay, my "gullible" interpretation of same events:
1. Bernie at first very gracious with Hillary, reason? ...because he is a natural gentleman ("let's forget about the d@mn e-mails!").
2. When he saw Clinton/DNC dirty tricks begin to unfold, he got more realistic, tried to respond; but to me, it looked like he was just not very skillful at that, it's not his way!
* * *
And your last paragraph, well I am gob-smacked, O'Tink it could be! ...I like Obama very much, but to me it's always been undeniable, his lack of experience.
Well, I think "forgetting the d@mn emails" went much beyond being a gentleman. In my view, it was something a politician would say in order to get political payback at a later point. And I don't think anyone gets to be a Senator without being a shady-deal-making politician, gentleman or no gentleman.
Hmmm...well O'Tink I am going to keep in mind the (very real) possibility that you are correct about the shady-deal-make-stuff, with the hope of course that is not so.
I don't follow politics a whole lot...mostly because I don't think it is a realistic way for moving in a wholesome direction. But today I was thinking about Bernie Sanders, and why I tend to trust him; and truthfully, the reason I trust him is that he has come to the same conclusions I have, thus I tend to ascribe to him my own motives. And THAT is not necessarily true...that BC stuff with his wife sounds questionable, for example.
* * *
Do you follow ALL the senators? Do you have any opinion of Patty Murray, from Washington State? She would be one I would expect to be less-shady... I had some contact with her when she was first elected in the 1990's, but again have not followed her career.
No, I don't follow all hundred senators, that would be a full-time job (), and not a very pleasant one, sort of like working in a sewer, like Ed Norton.
And no, I don't know anything about Patty Murray, tbh. My generalization is based on the antics of those senators I have followed, and perhaps by a famous quote by Bismarck: "You should never ask what gets put into a sausage or into a political deal."
O'Tink, I laughed and laughed ... Ed Norton...Bismarck...your explanations are often very expressive, graphic...conveying your point in dynamic fashion!
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
You're right, but he has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
Bernie's REAL purpose in running is NOT to obliterate billionaires (especially not liberal ones), but to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the Democrats by kissing her hind quarters in the debates.
(btw, the above are not Hillary's hind quarters; she would commit mass murder for a figure like that, but you get the idea.)
In return, Bernie expects to get a cabinet position (maybe Health, Education and Welfare) in which he can hand out a lot of free stuff at middle-class taxpayer expense.
He won't touch them, at least not the liberal ones like Buffett or Moore, and he certainly won't touch the fortunes of rich Democrat pols like Gore, the Kennedys, the Clintons, etc.
The plan is to shrink the middle class and have a rich liberal oligarchy in permanent control of a populace mostly dependent on govt handouts.
Well, you've made a lot of fearless predictions; I'll be watching tonight to see if Trump comes in third.
I think you're right that if killary folds, it will be Biden-Fauxcahontas for the Dems.
But I'm not sure about Bloomberg running against Trump... I think the NYC Nanny would siphon off more votes from the Dems than from Trump. I thought Bloomberg was going to run only if Sanders was the Dem pick.
@ PATTY: Well, you were almost right about Trump coming in third; he barely beat out Rubio for second.
And it looks as if killary will even more barely squeak by Sanders -- lol, she had a 50-point lead in Iowa six months ago, and ends up winning by a few tenths of a point.
most of the adults in the country are fed up with Washington and the 17 - 25s are into KUMBAYA and free stuff!!!! Yes I was close I read and look into as many sites as I have time and when I give my thoughts they aren't simply knee jerkers...
That's what elections are all about, to swing the movable 10 or 15% in the middle one way or the other. The knee jerkers don't really count, since they can be taken for granted.
Not into politics you tell me..
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
What concerns me most about US politics is the drift (gallop?) towards a super-rich oligarchy presiding over an ever-increasing underclass dependent on govt handouts and a shrinking middle class, upon whom real economic prosperity depends.
Gee, sounds like the way Hitler dealt with many of the wealthiest Germans! GREAT QUESTION, TINK!
I think everything will remain the same if Bernie Sanders were to become President. Many politicians running for President will promise this and that but once they get sworn in, those promises disappear.
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
No one has pulled that stunt as outrageously as MAObama and, hey, his key qualities are he's a commie, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, LIAR (in MY humble opinion and with all due respect!) Maybe there is a reason the Middle Class is crumbling to dust under Obama? Imagine that; Alinsky did. Read "Rules for Radicals".
No. How could he possibly do that?
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
Yep!
That would be an astronomical "if." The best he can do is state uncomfortable things that Hillary will have to answer IMO.
As a Republican......I don't want Trump, any more than I want the rest of the Republican slate. What I DO enjoy watching in Trump is that he has the balls to say uncomfortable things that other people are afraid to say, but who silently agree, to whatever degree that may be. His strong suit would be in business and the economy. Foreign policy would be a bit dicey.
MY greatest dream in this total election circus of the absurds for either party would have been former Marine Corps General James Mattis. That sum bitch would straighten some shit out asap...and I mean asap. Clear, concise, intelligent, gifted....and he loves our Country. Here's hoping for my pipe dream of a write in victory.
meanwhile, the wheel goes round and round.........where it stops...........
That would be true, if Bernie were legitimately running against Hillary, but he's not---
all he's done in the debates is kiss her hind quarters.
His purposes in running are to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the party, and in return he expects to get a cabinet position (maybe Health, Education and Welfare) in which he can hand out a lot of free stuff at taxpayer expense.
O'Tink, you are ALMOST as disillusioned as I am!
Virginia, you can say that again.
But one thing that was funny about the Sanders-Clinton debates:
At first, Bernie did nothing but kiss her hind quarters, but as the primaries proceeded, he found that she was much more unpopular than he initially thought, and then he started getting tough with her in the later debates, thinking he really had a chance to win (which he did, if the DNC fix hadn't been in).
I think something similar happened in the 2008 Democratic primaries. It's my hunch that Obama didn't expect to beat Hillary, but only entered to get name recognition for a later try at the Presidency, and was as surprised as anyone that he ultimately won, late in the game.
@OtherTink: Okay, my "gullible" interpretation of same events:
1. Bernie at first very gracious with Hillary, reason? ...because he is a natural gentleman ("let's forget about the d@mn e-mails!").
2. When he saw Clinton/DNC dirty tricks begin to unfold, he got more realistic, tried to respond; but to me, it looked like he was just not very skillful at that, it's not his way!
* * *
And your last paragraph, well I am gob-smacked, O'Tink it could be! ...I like Obama very much, but to me it's always been undeniable, his lack of experience.
@ Virginia,
Well, I think "forgetting the d@mn emails" went much beyond being a gentleman. In my view, it was something a politician would say in order to get political payback at a later point. And I don't think anyone gets to be a Senator without being a shady-deal-making politician, gentleman or no gentleman.
Hmmm...well O'Tink I am going to keep in mind the (very real) possibility that you are correct about the shady-deal-make-stuff, with the hope of course that is not so.
I don't follow politics a whole lot...mostly because I don't think it is a realistic way for moving in a wholesome direction. But today I was thinking about Bernie Sanders, and why I tend to trust him; and truthfully, the reason I trust him is that he has come to the same conclusions I have, thus I tend to ascribe to him my own motives. And THAT is not necessarily true...that BC stuff with his wife sounds questionable, for example.
* * *
Do you follow ALL the senators? Do you have any opinion of Patty Murray, from Washington State? She would be one I would expect to be less-shady... I had some contact with her when she was first elected in the 1990's, but again have not followed her career.
Hi Virginia,
No, I don't follow all hundred senators, that would be a full-time job (
), and not a very pleasant one, sort of like working in a sewer, like Ed Norton. 
And no, I don't know anything about Patty Murray, tbh. My generalization is based on the antics of those senators I have followed, and perhaps by a famous quote by Bismarck: "You should never ask what gets put into a sausage or into a political deal."
O'Tink, I laughed and laughed ... Ed Norton...Bismarck...your explanations are often very expressive, graphic...conveying your point in dynamic fashion!
Nope will not happen!!
He has no intention of touching the fortunes of ueberrich liberals, like Gore, the Clintons, the Kennedys, Michael Moore or Warren Buffett, etc., and he won't be able to touch the conservative billionaires either, much as he might like to.
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
I mean, I don't think he'll be able to.
However, he WOULD sock the middle class with higher taxes to make society more "fair".
Bernie's REAL purpose in running is NOT to obliterate billionaires (especially not liberal ones), but to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the Democrats by kissing her hind quarters in the debates.
(btw, the above are not Hillary's hind quarters; she would commit mass murder for a figure like that, but you get the idea.)
In return, Bernie expects to get a cabinet position (maybe Health, Education and Welfare) in which he can hand out a lot of free stuff at middle-class taxpayer expense.
He'll just make the political/economic climate so miserable that they'll flee...leaving the vampire class looking around for new victims.
The plan is to shrink the middle class and have a rich liberal oligarchy in permanent control of a populace mostly dependent on govt handouts.
Hi, Sym!
Cprrect!
Yes, correct, but evil on the part of these power-hungry Fabian socialist (or worse) scoundrels.
BERNIE WHO? HE WILL NEVER GET ELECTED ..TOO OLD TOO COMMIE FOR MOST OF US
He's promising to give away the store, at the expense of the minority that still works for a living.
if killery gets indicted, it will go to the veep with a 1 year term promise and the so called ''indian'' professor as veep
HOWEVER, if TRUMP wins the nomination you can bet BLOOMBURG WILL RUN AGAINST HIM AS A DEMOCRAT....remember you read it here first
oh and i doubt trump wins tonight no ground game lucky 3rdmaybe
Well, you've made a lot of fearless predictions; I'll be watching tonight to see if Trump comes in third.
I think you're right that if killary folds, it will be Biden-Fauxcahontas for the Dems.
But I'm not sure about Bloomberg running against Trump... I think the NYC Nanny would siphon off more votes from the Dems than from Trump. I thought Bloomberg was going to run only if Sanders was the Dem pick.
right now its still too close to call
And it looks as if killary will even more barely squeak by Sanders -- lol, she had a 50-point lead in Iowa six months ago, and ends up winning by a few tenths of a point.
Middle class will pay.