• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sure, Bernie has the most donors and most donations of anyone, including trump. But the military?

Total nonsense. Establishment democrats have forgotten the reshaping of the party under FDR as the pro worker, populist party that uplifted and cared for all members of the union.

That's something YOU and the rest of the centrist dems need to square.

I am well aware the democrat party is not the party of the people. I don't think that was true even during FDR's time. He was a great speaker and said everything we wanted to hear but he still was never for the people.
 
I am well aware the democrat party is not the party of the people. I don't think that was true even during FDR's time. He was a great speaker and said everything we wanted to hear but he still was never for the people.

I disagree. The Democrats must return to the party of FDR or risk being marginalized.
 
I disagree. The Democrats must return to the party of FDR or risk being marginalized.

FDR was pushing full on socialism. I think that's where they are now and it might be a loser.
 
Even if he some how wins and becomes president he will face the same opposition Trump is fighting. Little or no support from your party except to keep us fairly evenly divided. The rich and powerful can and will rule over us as long as we never unite. They use our media to make sure the hate never ends and we finally realize the only reason nothing is getting done is because we are divided.

No, he won't. He faces a lot of opposition from the wealthy - and don't compare him to trump, who fights FOR the wealthy, they're opposites - but that's why he's building a political revolution to defeat the wealthy interests from taking all the money. He did co-found the largest caucus in Congress, which is the one against plutocracy...
 

Being military all my life, I find that most interesting. The military voted for Trump in 2016 60-34 over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I wonder how Sanders would have done. It's no secret that the military didn't like Hillary, for some of us that went back to her being first lady. One should keep in mind donations don't always turn into votes, as it depends on who is donating. The article also stated the military's donations to Trump were drastically lower in 2016 than to Sanders. For 2016 political donations to Trump from the defense sector, Open Secrets doesn't break this down any lower, was $1,089,763 to Hillary, $356,423 to Trump with $348,387 to Sanders. Yet Hillary lost the vet vote 60-34 while having the most donations, money wise.

Sector Totals to Candidates • OpenSecrets

I can relate to older vets giving to Sanders. I have a congressman who I deeply disagree with his politics, but he is the best when it comes to Veterans affairs and issues. I voted for him in 2018 partly because of that. Money isn't everything either, Hillary proved that in 2016. Hillary had 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 million and still lost.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Veterans also still seem to support Trump. "In a survey of nearly 1,300 veterans conducted in May and June, 57 percent of respondents said they approve of how Trump is leading the armed forces. In contrast, about 41 percent said they disapprove of how he has handled running the military."

Strong support for Trump among veterans in new national poll

Going to my VFW and American Legion meetings there is very little talk about Trump, impeachment, Sanders, Warren, Biden. Of course there is still a long way to go. But that is more the normal, the military, veterans usually don't talk much about politics, they're more non-political than political. That is unless they really dislike a candidate or a policy. Then they, we'll let it be known our feelings. In 2016 you didn't hear much about Trump at the meetings, but you sure heard a lot of nasty things about Hillary. I would lay odds, you, I, won't hear those things about Sanders if he wins the nomination.
 
No, he won't. He faces a lot of opposition from the wealthy - and don't compare him to trump, who fights FOR the wealthy, they're opposites - but that's why he's building a political revolution to defeat the wealthy interests from taking all the money. He did co-found the largest caucus in Congress, which is the one against plutocracy...

I have some bad news for you but Plutocracy has been our form of government going back to the founding fathers. FDR is the one that turned our country over to the rich and powerful when he took the gold from the people and gave it to the wealthiest people in this country. He bought the gold for roughly 20 dollars from the people and after giving to the bankers the price was raised to 35 dollars. Talk about sticking it to the people of this country. Please.
 
I have some bad news for you but Plutocracy has been our form of government going back to the founding fathers. FDR is the one that turned our country over to the rich and powerful when he took the gold from the people and gave it to the wealthiest people in this country.

chart-01.jpg
 
In 2016 you didn't hear much about Trump at the meetings, but you sure heard a lot of nasty things about Hillary. I would lay odds, you, I, won't hear those things about Sanders if he wins the nomination.

They had some good reason on Hillary, if they were against things like her wrongly hawkish stands from the Iraq war to her controversial desire to put a no-fly zone in Syria, her leading role in the Lybian fiasco, and her corrupt role in supporting the coup in Honduras. She was still a much better pick than trump overall, but much worse than Bernie.
 
They had some good reason on Hillary, if they were against things like her wrongly hawkish stands from the Iraq war to her controversial desire to put a no-fly zone in Syria, her leading role in the Lybian fiasco, and her corrupt role in supporting the coup in Honduras. She was still a much better pick than trump overall, but much worse than Bernie.

Bernie, although still sharp as a tack, is too damn old, man. Who's left, AOC? Anybody electable? Left wing populists are interesting to me.
 
Bernie, although still sharp as a tack, is too damn old, man. Who's left, AOC? Anybody electable?

Not a reason not to support him for president. He has the best leadership we need.
 
FDR was pushing full on socialism. I think that's where they are now and it might be a loser.

FDR won 4 terms "pushing socialism" so you may want to... be careful.
 
Spoiler alert: Bernie would have won in 2016.

I believe you on this. Sanders and my politics are quite different, but I have always respected the man, always believed even if his politics were different that he has had the best interest of this nation in his heart. Those feelings were completely opposite when dealing with Hillary Clinton. I voted against both Clinton and Trump, casting my ballot to a third party candidate. I would do so again if we had the identical match up today even knowing what I know. I would have voted for Sanders in 2016 against Trump, but not against a Kasich or Rubio. I would have voted for them against Sanders.

By the way, there were only three candidates back in 2016 who had higher favorable's than unfavorable's among all Americans. Sanders, Kasich and Rubio. Trump who won had a favorable of 36%, unfavorable of 60%, Hillary at 38% favorable, 56% unfavorable on election day. Compare them to 2012 Obama 62% favorable, Romney 55% favorable. 2008 Obama 62% favorable, McCain 60% favorable. 2004 G.W. Bush 61% favorable, Kerry 57% favorable, 2000 G.W. Bush 58% favorable, Gore 55% and so on. Only one major party candidate prior to 2016 had a favorable rating of below 50%, that was Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. that says something about 2016 and how much America as a whole disliked and didn't want both major party candidates in 2016.
 
Last edited:
They had some good reason on Hillary, if they were against things like her wrongly hawkish stands from the Iraq war to her controversial desire to put a no-fly zone in Syria, her leading role in the Lybian fiasco, and her corrupt role in supporting the coup in Honduras. She was still a much better pick than trump overall, but much worse than Bernie.

those reasons never entered the equation. You must realize the military mind is completely different from the civilian one. I didn't say better or worse, just different.
 
No, they support keeping a fair share of the wealth they create. Billionaires support all the wealth going to them. Shocking.

I think youre confusing wages and social programs. Wages are fair in that both sides agree to it. Social programs like FDR put in place take wealth from those who create it, and redistribute it to those who dont (ie free stuff). Medicaid, for example is not wealth created by those who benefit from it. Just the opposite, it is specifically designed to take wealth from everyone who pays taxes and pay for stuff for people who dont have or create any wealth.

No surprise that the 72 million poor people who recieved medicaid but dont pay for it, like it.
 
No one is saying "free stuff."

Sanders and FDR simply advocate for an inclusive society wherein our tax dollars are spent on things that help us, in lieu of spending our tax dollars giving petrochemical and agribusiness companies billions in subsidies.

Spent on things that help those who dont pay taxes generally. Ie. free stuff. 50% of wage earners pay no income tax. The bulk of income tax is spent on social programs that directly benefit the bottom 50%. He literally said 'free college'. And thats just Bernie. Warren has all sort of free stuff plans. Yang wants to give everyone $1000 a month.
 
I think youre confusing wages and social programs. Wages are fair in that both sides agree to it. Social programs like FDR put in place take wealth from those who create it, and redistribute it to those who dont (ie free stuff). Medicaid, for example is not wealth created by those who benefit from it. Just the opposite, it is specifically designed to take wealth from everyone who pays taxes and pay for stuff for people who dont have or create any wealth.

No surprise that the 72 million poor people who recieved medicaid but dont pay for it, like it.

On the one hand, you're right that it's not an issue strictly of each person creating and keeping wealth. It's an issue of the wealth created not excessively going into a few hands - plutocracy. That's a hugely better situation. You complain about Medicaid - so your alternative is, let's have a lot of our citizens killed for lack of healthcare, while billionaires take the money for it instead. Screw you.

On the other hand, you say something that is a fundamental error the right makes - this idea of 'both sides agreeing' to any wage paid. That is a myth. It does work that way for some, and some get reasonable wages. But for many, there is no 'bottom' to the wages they're paid - they have to eat and will take anything that lets them eat - other than the law.

This whole idea of 'mutually agreed wages' comes from when people were paid starvation wages, and the people protested enough that the employers began this idea of 'mutually agreed wages' and 'contracts' the worker agreed to - but each worker was done individual where the employer had all the power, the worker was easily replaced if he didn't like the starvation wage.

This is why collective bargaining, shifting the power to be more equal, was so critical to workers getting a more fair share - and employers and the government responded with violence to prevent it, until some laws were passed to protect it - and then it was attacked by Republicans for decades until unions went from covering 1/3 of private workers to what, 5% today?

But that's the worker side.

The plutocracy side is that while productivity doubled and tripled, and economic wealth increased, doubling, tripling, all the new wealth went to the top 1%. And they used that wealth in part to corrupt our political system, entirely owning the Republican Party to work for them against the American people. Those government programs are for the good of the American people, and you are their enemy.
 
Spent on things that help those who dont pay taxes generally. Ie. free stuff. 50% of wage earners pay no income tax. The bulk of income tax is spent on social programs that directly benefit the bottom 50%. He literally said 'free college'. And thats just Bernie. Warren has all sort of free stuff plans. Yang wants to give everyone $1000 a month.

Everyone pays payroll taxes, so your screed is irrelevant. Free at "point" of service. Moreover, americans used to get "free" state college, but you already knew that, right? So your entire premise is, as usual with libertarians, a mythological fantasy land of kindergarten self centered arguments.

Payroll taxes go into the system also, and everyone who works pays them. Just because a business owner pays them so little, ie Walmart, Target, etc, doesn't mean they aren't contributing members of society who are paying in for benefits they barely get right now. Moreover, I reject the notion these are "freebies" since everyone pays into them. They are paid benefits, not entitlements.

We should be seeking to lift up everyone, not tearing them down so rich folks can continue to pillage the richest society earth has ever known.
 
Spent on things that help those who dont pay taxes generally. Ie. free stuff. 50% of wage earners pay no income tax. The bulk of income tax is spent on social programs that directly benefit the bottom 50%. He literally said 'free college'. And thats just Bernie. Warren has all sort of free stuff plans. Yang wants to give everyone $1000 a month.

Are you for every American child receiving 'free' education K-12 paid for by taxes, or are you for everyone paying for private education where many families won't pay for it, leaving many American children uneducated, many even unable to read or write, reducing the wealth created in the country, and making our country less able to compete globally? Pick one and justify it.
 
Back
Top Bottom