I'm not going to give you a hard time here because you had two replies that actually contained content that was worthy of replies in return. But really, you should have more pride than this. Large red letters....really? So sad.
You know, I can't help but like Bernie, even though I think he's wrong about everything and would never vote for him. He's just kind of a funny, brash old guy. I wish him well. He's sort of like a Trump, but polar opposite in his ideas.
Bern's the reason we have a democratic republic. The sorta guy who's picked other people's pockets his entire life and thinks that's the way people should live. If he had a little more charisma, in a full-on democracy, he'd drag all of us down into the hell of socialism. As for being like Trump, you have a point. Except that Trump is turning out to be a really good president (go figure, amirite?) who is making America great again. Trump's a born salesman so I'm sure he's a great guy to share a beer with.
No, I think that falls into the category of "socialism in moderation" that I mentioned in a prior post. Things which government should do to maintain law and order, protect our borders, and fight fires. That about sums it up.
Well, actually the two most sane candidates (Yang and Tulsi) would have a chance of winning, so I'd be all for it.
Jeremy is not anti-Semitic, though he is against illegal settlements in the occupied West bank. The real problem both Bernie and Jeremy face (as good old-fashioned socialists) is the fact that people don't like paying higher taxes to fund desirable universal programs such as health, education and infrastructure. [I'm thinking change will come when the next recession hits, and central bank governors - after the proven failure of their neoliberal monetarist policies - will finally turn to MMT. Time will tell.]
That's the conventional view. The real reason is that people don't like paying higher taxes for progressive Left policies. And the Left, in their ignorance, continue to play by the rules of current orthodox neoliberalism that posit the desirability of balanced budgets - and so the Left will keep losing (unless Morrison stuffs up big time). Here's a bit of Aussie history that might interest you. https://theconversation.com/memorie...-to-fight-unemployment-the-promise-won-115376 Memories. In 1961 Labor promised to boost the deficit to fight unemployment. The promise won. In the lead-up to the 1961 federal election, unemployment had climbed above 2% and was creeping towards 3%. (By today’s standards that doesn’t sound much, but for two decades since the onset of the second world war unemployment had been mostly well below 2%.) The Labor opposition, led by Arthur Calwell, went to the 1961 election promising that: "Labor will restore full employment within 12 months, and will introduce a supplementary budget in February for a deficit of £100 million, if necessary, to achieve this". etc..... notice how far our expectations have dropped since then...."unemployment had climbed above 2%"! Lots. The working class are ignored by both parties now. Meanwhile Trump tells porkies about restoring blue collar manufacturing jobs, and Labor has its double-speak over coal-mining jobs, depending on which electorates rely on coal jobs.