Sanders Beats All Top Republican Candidates In Latest Poll

In his own party who does Bernie have to contend with? Oh that's right...... The One.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Sanders Beats All Top Republican Candidates In Latest Poll

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, is gaining steam against top Republican rivals, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

In a hypothetical matchup against the current GOP front-runner, business mogul Donald Trump, Sanders takes 49 percent of the vote to Trump's 41 percent. Against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sanders leads 44 percent to 43 percent. He also beats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 10 percentage points and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson by 6 points.

Sanders still going strong! Oh it gets better. Read on.

Fifty-nine percent of voters also say Sanders is honest and trustworthy -- placing him well above former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, and above all top Republican candidates tested in the poll.

Feel the BERN! Like I've said for a while, Bernie is my guy. I'm voting for him. I'm glad more and more of the country is coming around to him. I'm also glad that they see him as more trustworthy than Clinton. If Clinton loses her front runner spot to Bernie, the Republicans will lose most of their rhetoric about trustworthiness.

All Bernie needed was a mic and the people. Feel The Bern! Overturn citizens united, get the big money out of politics, only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo, fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses, and insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.

Fully fund and expand the VA so that every veteran gets the care that he or she has earned and deserves, substantially improve the processing of Veterans’ claims for compensation, expand mental health service for Veterans, authored the historic Veterans’ Access, Choice and Accountability Act to
improve care and increase accountability at the VA, and introduced legislation to restore all cuts to military pensions!

This is just the tip of the iceberg with Bernie. I love this man as my fellow citizen and I love his ideas. Do we realize how much this country would change in a short amount of time if we actually got the big money out of politics? Oh my goodness gracious thank you sir may I have another!?

originally posted by: olaru12
Jeb on the other hand will be the wartime president....it's an established pattern. All this macho tough guy BS by Trump is just setting the stage for the Varsity players. The neocons....They have just been in the background training and gaining strength for the big game.

Jeb can't even garner 2% support in his own party. It is going to be Clinton and her associated crime syndicate in a landslide.

a reply to: Gumerk

This is just the tip of the iceberg with Bernie. I love this man as my fellow citizen and I love his ideas. Do we realize how much this country would change i

I have had enough of liberal 'change' to last me awhile.

Even on the off chance he gets elected, he would never get any of his bills passed. Neither party will want to deal with the consequences.

You dems are stuck with billary or biden.

a reply to: Metallicus

When/Who was the last liberal who focused on getting big money out of the political process and had this detailed of a vision to do it? If big money is no longer in politics that's good for everyone, not just liberals.

If Bernie is giving us all free stuff what is the problem? Compared to the cost of wars, free infrastructure, free healthcare sounds more fun.

a reply to: Metallicus

He won't be a centrist by any means and will simply keep the country divided and angry.

If you knew anything about his voting record then you would know that he could be a centrist. Bernie has voted with Republicans just like he has voted with Democrats it all depends on the issue.

originally posted by: MOMof3
If Bernie is giving us all free stuff what is the problem? Compared to the cost of wars, free infrastructure, free healthcare sounds more fun.

See how all of it is paid with taxes he won't be giving anyone anything free. The giving free stuff is just right wing propaganda.

a reply to: buster2010

I am sure you are right. I come from a different angle. I don't believe the government pays for anything. Money comes from the government and gets it right back. That is why debt and deficits are ridiculous. Except war which is just give aways to foreign countries, rogue governments, private contractors, who do not circle it back.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Mikeyy
Yawn.

What exactly does the Burn offer that should make me at all excited about him?

Let me guess, free stuff...

Yawn.

If you really wanted to answer that question honestly you'd simply look it up yourself. That info is all available online.

But it's much easier to stay uninformed and just make lame comments so you chose to do that instead it seems.

And there a hours and hours of "Brunch with Bernie" in Thom Hartmann's radio archives. Seven years worth or something like that.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

Pre-Obamacare, America had the least efficient medical system in the world. In the world. That means we paid the most. Canada pays significantly less of its GDP to fund its universal healthcare system, and its results are the same, or better compared to the American system.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

originally posted by: MOMof3
If Bernie is giving us all free stuff what is the problem? Compared to the cost of wars, free infrastructure, free healthcare sounds more fun.

Wars are the cost of "free" stuff. See logrolling

War guys ok welfare guys who ok warfare guys who ok welfare guys ......

Bern is double time towards the top down control of everything, whatever you want to call it.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Metallicus

He won't be a centrist by any means and will simply keep the country divided and angry.

If you knew anything about his voting record then you would know that he could be a centrist. Bernie has voted with Republicans just like he has voted with Democrats it all depends on the issue.

More like a central controlist.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you need.

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

Pre-Obamacare, America had the least efficient medical system in the world. In the world. That means we paid the most. Canada pays significantly less of its GDP to fund its universal healthcare system, and its results are the same, or better compared to the American system.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Pre Obamacare was still post Government intrusion. The Gov inflated the price of medical care and let the illegals soak up all the charity which was budgeted at 25% before the gov "helped".

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

Pre-Obamacare, America had the least efficient medical system in the world. In the world. That means we paid the most. Canada pays significantly less of its GDP to fund its universal healthcare system, and its results are the same, or better compared to the American system.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Pre Obamacare was still post Government intrusion. The Gov inflated the price of medical care and let the illegals soak up all the charity which was budgeted at 25% before the gov "helped".

It's exactly the opposite of that. It's the fact that the government doesn't regulate it that creates these insanely high prices. You can create conjecture all you want, but when Canada, the UK, the Nordic countries, all have single payer healthcare, and pay significantly less, your argument goes out the window. We're dealing with facts, not conjecture. The economics of scale allows the government to do certain things better than private industry. Twenty cents of every healthcare dollar spent goes not to healthcare, but to marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit. That's not efficient in the least. All of that goes away with single payer.

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

Pre-Obamacare, America had the least efficient medical system in the world. In the world. That means we paid the most. Canada pays significantly less of its GDP to fund its universal healthcare system, and its results are the same, or better compared to the American system.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Pre Obamacare was still post Government intrusion. The Gov inflated the price of medical care and let the illegals soak up all the charity which was budgeted at 25% before the gov "helped".

It's exactly the opposite of that. It's the fact that the government doesn't regulate it

The government does regulate it. Even if you know what you sickness is, only a doctor authorized by the gov can write a prescription. Drugs are illegal by rule of the gov. The gov makes doctors work for free every chance it gets. The gov makes health care a legal problem.

that creates these insanely high prices.

High prices always means a monopoly, and monopolies can only exist as an effect of the deadly force government. Otherwise someone would sell quality medicine and therapy at a lower price and make money.

You can create conjecture all you want, but when Canada, the UK, the Nordic countries, all have single payer healthcare, and pay significantly less, your argument goes out the window. We're dealing with facts, not conjecture.

All of that is the from the economic momentum from the Industrial Revolution. Every generation the accumulated wealth is shaved away. Some day it will be gone.

The economics of scale allows the government to do certain things better than private industry.

Economics of scale is derived from the costs of resources in the free market. Governmnt programs distort the price structure throughout the economy. Any economic efficiency in government action would be purely accidental.

Twenty cents of every healthcare dollar spent goes not to healthcare, but to marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit. That's not efficient in the least. All of that goes away with single payer.

So does quality control and performance.



picture from the movie Idiocracy

Poll? That's funny, I wasn't "polled"? And I live in one of the most Commie/Scocialist States!!! I'd think they'd have, "Polled" me!??! I feel "marginalised" and "discriminated" against!!!

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: somnum

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus

Promoting the General Welfare is part of the Constitution.

Why must you guys cry 'socialist agenda'?

Because that clause is open to interpretation and my interpretation doesn't cost you or me money where yours does.

Pre-Obamacare, America had the least efficient medical system in the world. In the world. That means we paid the most. Canada pays significantly less of its GDP to fund its universal healthcare system, and its results are the same, or better compared to the American system.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Pre Obamacare was still post Government intrusion. The Gov inflated the price of medical care and let the illegals soak up all the charity which was budgeted at 25% before the gov "helped".

It's exactly the opposite of that. It's the fact that the government doesn't regulate it

The government does regulate it. Even if you know what you sickness is, only a doctor authorized by the gov can write a prescription. Drugs are illegal by rule of the gov. The gov makes doctors work for free every chance it gets. The gov makes health care a legal problem.

that creates these insanely high prices.

High prices always means a monopoly, and monopolies can only exist as an effect of the deadly force government. Otherwise someone would sell quality medicine and therapy at a lower price and make money.

You can create conjecture all you want, but when Canada, the UK, the Nordic countries, all have single payer healthcare, and pay significantly less, your argument goes out the window. We're dealing with facts, not conjecture.

All of that is the from the economic momentum from the Industrial Revolution. Every generation the accumulated wealth is shaved away. Some day it will be gone.

The economics of scale allows the government to do certain things better than private industry.

Economics of scale is derived from the costs of resources in the free market. Governmnt programs distort the price structure throughout the economy. Any economic efficiency in government action would be purely accidental.

Twenty cents of every healthcare dollar spent goes not to healthcare, but to marketing, underwriting, administration, and profit. That's not efficient in the least. All of that goes away with single payer.

So does quality control and performance.

picture from the movie Idiocracy

You create this narrative that is obviously false because other countries have single payer, and they do not have poor care. We have had inefficient for-profit healthcare, and the prices have been going up, not down. You can try and come up with whatever logical points you want, but they become invalid in the face of empirical evidence.