4 ms·

2 & 3 are Bernie's basic platform. He should have been the nominee.

fixxer 10y ago
Did he not also want to layer on entitlement expansion (free college? Who was going to pay for that?). I actually think Bernie would have lost. Interesting thought exercise though.
- ghost-monk 10y ago
  I agree that the "free college" issue was not laid out clearly enough. In reality, many countries offer free public education at the college level, it's not a ridiculous proposition. It's a worthy cause as long as the programs being subsidized lead to more capable and, eventually, more affluent American work force that would boost the economy. Ideally, Bernie's platform would offset the cost of some free higher education by closing corporate tax loopholes, releasing non-violent drug offenders from tax-funded prisons and jails, and significantly reducing military spending.
  - gremlinsinc 10y ago
    also think about it like this... when automation comes in and takes away just about every job, and only engineers, scientists, doctors, developers are left-- and only maybe 25-30% of the populace can find work at all -- who's going to pay ANY taxes when nobody earns any income? -- The more people that go to college, get HIGHER paying jobs, leave poverty, and end up paying taxes contributes more to the economy than not letting them go to college, and instead making them reliant on welfare for life.
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  I don't. There's a fair amount of states who voted for Sanders and Trump: idaho, montana, north dakota, wisconsin, west virginia, oklahoma, kansas, nebraska - lots of these states were close races in the general, it's not hard to think that sanders would have won there since he was actually trying to address their core issue of middle class jobs. And it shows that at least the democrats in those states preferred Sanders to Clinton. The states that voted for Sanders and Clinton: washington, oregon, colorado, minnesota, lots of new england states - basically all the guaranteed blue states no matter who the candidate is.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    "Socialist Coder" would have voted for Bernie.... Shocked, I say, shocked. ;)
    - majewsky 10y ago
      Well, can you counter his arguments?
      - zimpenfish 10y ago
        Difficult to counter hypothetical arguments.
      - fixxer 10y ago
        We're not arguing here. Election is over. All I can say is that I would not vote for Bernie. I think: - Primary voting is suggestive of turnout, but when you've got a candidate that people are voting against out of hate, it is hard to infer true support. So, I don't know if Bernie would have won. - I heard (unconfirmed) that 9% of registered democrats voted for Trump. Such a weird section that, again, it is hard to infer support. - It is all moot now anyways.

Did he not also want to layer on entitlement expansion (free college? Who was going to pay for that?). I actually think Bernie would have lost. Interesting thought exercise though.

ghost-monk 10y ago
I agree that the "free college" issue was not laid out clearly enough. In reality, many countries offer free public education at the college level, it's not a ridiculous proposition. It's a worthy cause as long as the programs being subsidized lead to more capable and, eventually, more affluent American work force that would boost the economy. Ideally, Bernie's platform would offset the cost of some free higher education by closing corporate tax loopholes, releasing non-violent drug offenders from tax-funded prisons and jails, and significantly reducing military spending.
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  also think about it like this... when automation comes in and takes away just about every job, and only engineers, scientists, doctors, developers are left-- and only maybe 25-30% of the populace can find work at all -- who's going to pay ANY taxes when nobody earns any income? -- The more people that go to college, get HIGHER paying jobs, leave poverty, and end up paying taxes contributes more to the economy than not letting them go to college, and instead making them reliant on welfare for life.
socialist_coder 10y ago
I don't. There's a fair amount of states who voted for Sanders and Trump: idaho, montana, north dakota, wisconsin, west virginia, oklahoma, kansas, nebraska - lots of these states were close races in the general, it's not hard to think that sanders would have won there since he was actually trying to address their core issue of middle class jobs. And it shows that at least the democrats in those states preferred Sanders to Clinton. The states that voted for Sanders and Clinton: washington, oregon, colorado, minnesota, lots of new england states - basically all the guaranteed blue states no matter who the candidate is.
- fixxer 10y ago
  "Socialist Coder" would have voted for Bernie.... Shocked, I say, shocked. ;)
  - majewsky 10y ago
    Well, can you counter his arguments?
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      Difficult to counter hypothetical arguments.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      We're not arguing here. Election is over. All I can say is that I would not vote for Bernie. I think: - Primary voting is suggestive of turnout, but when you've got a candidate that people are voting against out of hate, it is hard to infer true support. So, I don't know if Bernie would have won. - I heard (unconfirmed) that 9% of registered democrats voted for Trump. Such a weird section that, again, it is hard to infer support. - It is all moot now anyways.