Not a fan of him although I agree with him on some issues. I don't see how he would even succeed in his goals of punishing the financial sector and decreasing inequality. It's not surprising that Socialism has increased its popularity and certainly lost much of its stigma given how many people are reflexively anti-conservative and pro-big government and left-wing tyrannies are either ignored or praised.
Speaking of ignoring or praising false narratives, the idea that conservatives are anti-big government hasn't been true since before Reagan. They're all about big government when it comes to the military, law-enforcement, slowing and preventing equal rights, the war on drugs, the surveillance state, voting laws and redistricting, abortion rights, interfering with school curriculum, etc. They suddenly find their distaste for big government again whenever it involves actually properly outfitting and caring for the soldiers they send to war, dealing with mental health and drug addiction through treatment rather than criminalizing it, regulating guns or the environment, caring for the poor or sick or elderly, maintaining our national infrastructure, etc.
Sanders and I have extremely little in common as far as political views go, but I certainly don't begrudge him his right to speak his mind freely (which even I admit is quite refreshing). And even though I don't support him politically, he sure is making this campaign much more interesting.
You make a very trenchant observation here -- both Republicans and Democrats are big government, just at odds over which programs to fund and which to axe. I prefer programs that help the middle class and protect the poor. What can I say? I grew up believing in the world Star Trek said was possible.
Or, if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination, will he support the candidate who does? I can't picture him running as an independent in the general election. Most of his support would come from people who would otherwise vote Democratic, which could contribute to a Republic win.
Rural Salisbury, North Carolina. Legendary home of Cheerwine, Stanback headache powder and Food Lion.
Which is always the problem with Third-Party and Independent candidates, and why they will never be viable without reform. Now the possibility of him being the VP candidate is not so far fetched, though....
That is a very good question, and I've had to give a bit of thought into how to respond (as well as find the time to come here and make a response. I think we need a leader who is not bought and paid for by the corporations and wealthy, and will actually do what is good for the country overall, and not just the 1% I believe that our country will remain weaker than in it's heydays so long as 90% of the wealth remain with 10% of the people (or are those numbers not quite right? It might be 99% for only 1%). The income inequality should take some form of priority. Abortion is an issue that can be tackled after that is solved for all I care. Loopholes also really need to be closed, so the wealthy can't evade taxes. it is really bad when wealthier people pay less in taxes than those who make less. If more people have more money to buy more things with their money, that will drive the economy more. And an example where laws are way too lax on corporations is when companies don't have to tell us what is in the beef we eat. I believe that it is clear that the people need to be protected from the corporations, not the other way around, and that they have way too much leeway right now to do what they want (examples where lack of regulation has led to disaster was the near-depression in 2008 and the Gulf Oil spill a few years back. I think that it needs to be made law that these regulations stay in place). Another form of misbehavior that needs to be discouraged is shipping jobs overseas, where corporations can get away with paying lesser wages and worker rights and benefits. I think a Job Export Tax for every job they ship overseas will make them think twice, while tax reductions for companies that increase their job numbers to the numbers that existed before they began shipping jobs overseas, as well as increasing wages would be in order. I think the tax increases/refunds should be based on the severity/rates. Actually, taxing corporations for bad behavior, and rewarding corporations for doing nice things for their workers and customers, especially when they don't necessarily have to (such as providing better healthcare/wages) wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, it would have to be based on their overall actions, and not just on this one little nice occasion. I also believe education should be a priority, at least to the point where our education programs are on par with the other countries that exceed us in that regard. I know the military brass won't like this, but the best way to do this is to divert military funding. I also think that at least as much investment in future energy sources like nuclear fusion and hydrogen fuel cell as in oil, coal, and natural gas should be encouraged, such as by giving tax breaks to companies that invest in cleaner, newer energy sources. Or is this already being done? We especially need to replace the fossil fuels used in aircraft, so that more focus can be placed on making supersonic and/or hypersonic aircraft, which is something I feel just isn't going to happen anytime soon as long as fuel prices increase (if at all, well except for the military, since they reasons/excuses/the research development money, not to mention they don't need to make a large fleet for everyday use). The supersonic/hypersonic aircraft aren't necessary to make our country great again, but it couldn't hurt to have something to make kids interested in science. Speaking of cleaner energy sources, something needs to be done about climate change before it really bites us in the ass, if it is already not too late, rather than just ignoring it. I could go on, but in short, we need something to be done about the wealth disparity, invest more in education and newer, cleaner energy sources, keep the corporations on a tighter leash, so their only main purpose is to provide products to their customers (and not to pay off politicians so they can get away with misconduct), and make it so that the wealthy are less able to control the government using their money. If we have a president who will not do the bidding of the wealthy and corporations, that will be a start. Other things that I'd like to see is for a major upgrade (or even rebuilding) of our highways, so they are more like the European Autostrada and Autobahn, allowing higher safe speed limits, though I think we should hold off on that until we have a clean replacement for fossil fuels safely in sight, and/or a transcontinental high-speed maglev rail system, similar to the ones in Europe and Japan, though I'm aware that this would cost billions. Still, it would create a lot of jobs, and I think once finished, it could be a source of national pride (especially if they were superior to anywhere else in the world). This isn't necessary to make our country great again, but it certainly would help. Actually, I went on for way longer than I planned, but yeah, those are my thoughts, and I don't think any of this will be done if even Hillary Clinton is elected. Oh, then I wonder why everybody is saying that it is impossible that he will get elected? Or are not enough people yet aware that all of the Republican candidates will do whatever the wealthy and corporation want them to do, even if it's bad for the country, and unfortunately, the same goes for Hillary Clinton? Her refusal to answer her position on the Keystone pipeline (unless elected, by which time it will be impossible for people who disagree with her position to redact their votes, even if that would be a deal breaker) is an example of this. The fact that the media won't focus on Sanders is probably not helping matters.
Forcing people to buy healthcare so they can receive medical treatment. But that they were free to go bankrupt or die. We live longer in dark times.
Sanders might sometimes label himself as democratic socialist or whatever but he is not. He is a social democrat and as the Scandinavian countries have shown during the few decades after WWII, as well as the rest of the Western World in which social democracy also reigned until the Reagan-Thatcher revolutions, is that this kind of mixed economy works best. Not to mention that, as others have pointed out, neoliberalism is not really in sync with its own ideology. It is more of a form of corporate socialism than an actual market economy. About tyrannies, Stalinism was probably the worst catastrophe of the 20th century and you are totally right that you should not take any left-winger who disavows that communism was a nightmare seriously. But you should also realize that very few contemporary left-wingers are actually communists. Even if you hear something radical (Zizek is an obvious example of such a public intellectual) if you listen close enough very often it is just formal radicalism that is a reaction to contemporary social democratic parties being mainly neoliberal scum. The goal, even of seeming radicals, is often to simply get back to where we have once been during the sixties.
Sanders is on record (many times) as saying that if he does not get the Dem nomination he will not run as a third party candidate and that he will support whoever becomes the Dem nominee.
While I respect your opinion, I think it is a much greater tyranny to say that if you want health care, you have to be able to afford it. The fact is, everyone at somepoint needs healthcare and it costs society much more when those who don't get the early treatment they need (because they don't have coverage) end up in our emergency rooms. Your argument also presupposes that people who don't have health care don't want it -- whereas the opposite is true. Most people that don't have health care wish they had this kind of protection. This is also not to mention the millions of children growing up in families with no healthcare. Are they supposed to suffer because their parents either "opted out" of the system or are too poor to afford it? Obamacare has many flaws and needs to be replaced with a single-payer system, but the fact is that over 10 million people now have health coverage that did not before. This is a good thing.
Some recent works about Bill Buckley's relationship with Vidal and Mailer show the dissatisfaction both sides of the spectrum had for that era. But they didn't know how good they had it. In some respects--if you take Dr. Drew seriously, interpersonal boundaries were pushed too far--something even Larry Kramer wrote about before anyone knew what HIV was. Buckley lamented unions--but look how miserable things are for the worker now. Are we better off after the Reagan revolution than before? Decidedly not. As far as health care is concerned--we have an aging populace. So either public or private options are going to cost. But we use our single payer Interstate system--and it works very well. Now imagine that someone tried to pay off the Debt by selling our own public highway system back to us. The weather equivalent of that was pushed for by Santorum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Duties_Act_of_2005 A move that was roundly criticized http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Air-Tr...ervice-Duties-Act-of-2005-Santorum-Bill-S-786 http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=1595 This is proof that privatization can actually cost the public more, not less. Certainly true with the private prison/industrial complex. As for Bernie--I want to see what his position on NASA is. Mondale wanted to kill off NASA, and Proxmire--well, the less said about him the better.