POTUS

[Citylaw]

The only problem I see with Bernie is that when he asks the Department of Agriculture to grow trees to give everyone free sh*t and it doesn't work what then?

Bernie says all the right things, but I don't see how he will do any of it. If he proves me wrong that will be awesome, but to me his ideas are about as practical as Trumps, but at least Bernie has a good heart unlike Trump.

[Maintain FL 350]

Yeah, I more or less agree. Sanders is an honest guy, and his heart is definitely in the right place. But as you say it's not very realistic at this point.

For example, I constantly see people posting stuff on social media about the awesomeness of the democratic socialist EU countries (Finland, Ireland, Denmark, etc). "In Denmark the minimum wage is $20 an hour and universities are free!" Well, I actually know something about these countries (I'm a dual citizen with one), and here's the point the memes always omit: the average joe in those countries pays 50% in taxes.

Not millionaires, not CEOs with yachts, but average people. Bernie says he can do it by just taxing the rich, but I don't buy it. Sweden wasn't able to sustain the welfare state by only taxing ABBA, and neither will we. Sooner or later, the kinds of programs that Bernie wants will require the average middle class American to pay much higher taxes. And at that point, he will be the most unpopular man in America.

Also, they have rather draconian immigration policies which are designed to limit the number of people who can access the welfare state. Try emigrating to Norway sometime and let me know how it goes. I assume this is not something Bernie is interested in emulating.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

Call me old fashioned here...............but "Better Dead Than Red" Mr. Sanders (all I am willing to say on the matter)

[Maintain FL 350]

Call me old fashioned here...............but "Better Dead Than Red" Mr. Sanders (all I am willing to say on the matter)

I don't necessarily disagree with Sanders on certain issues, and I don't think he's "red". For example, I think it's absurd that the richest country in the world doesn't have a comprehensive public healthcare system. We have a patchwork of policies and agencies that sort of form a national healthcare system. Seems silly.

But he is very much like modern European democratic socialists, which is fine as long as you're realistic about the costs and limitations.

The countries which have successfully adopted this model tend to be very small (5-20 million) and have very high taxes. I don't know if people like Sanders have ever really considered the implications of trying to establish such a system in a diverse nation of 350 million. To my knowledge, it has never happened.

Another point that I think American socialists don't realize is this:

The European welfare state system did not create the high standard of living that many enjoy, so much as it preserved what was already in place.

For example, Sweden already had a very high standard of living and a highly educated, mostly middle class, populace by the time the welfare state really kicked in (1960s and 70s). That's not the case in America. We have poverty and socio-economic disparity totally unlike anything Scandinavia can imagine. People like Sanders are expecting an American welfare state to fix that, but I'm not sure how realistic it is.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

Fine............Let "Pinkie" go find his Brain.

[cinnamon synonym]

Will the democrats push Biden into the race and/or will there be a brokered convention?  Uncle al?? Anyone?

No, at this point Clinton is almost guaranteed the nomination. Sanders can win Iowa and New Hampshire, but that appears to be it. Clinton has a very commanding lead in just about every other primary. She will easily get enough delegates.

There is no push for Biden, certainly not for Gore. A brokered convention? Why? If Clinton has enough delegates, and the DNC wants her anyway, why would there be a brokered convention?

As far as orange jumpsuits, I'll believe it when I see it. We've heard this about Clinton a hundred times before. Some looming scandal is going to take her down. Never happens. Remember how the Benghazi hearings were supposed to be some kind of bombshell? Nobody cared. The House Republicans care about this stuff way more than the general public does.

The question isn't whether Sanders can get the nomination, the question is whether Clinton can win nationally.

Clinton v Trump/Cruz, I think she strolls to the White House no problem. Clinton v Rubio, however, and I think she gets nervous.

This is the irony about this race. Despite the huge electoral vote advantage she has going into the race Clinton is a vulnerable candidate, especially in swing states. The Republicans may very well hand her the keys to the WH simply because they can't seem to nominate a reasonable candidate. Amazing what has happened to that party.

Amusing assessment.   Good luck with your hillary theory--though you may want to check out the Sheldon Silver story to see how a "I'll believe it when I see it" theory evolves. 

Rubio will probably win this thing. 

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

Will the democrats push Biden into the race and/or will there be a brokered convention?  Uncle al?? Anyone?

No, at this point Clinton is almost guaranteed the nomination. Sanders can win Iowa and New Hampshire, but that appears to be it. Clinton has a very commanding lead in just about every other primary. She will easily get enough delegates.

There is no push for Biden, certainly not for Gore. A brokered convention? Why? If Clinton has enough delegates, and the DNC wants her anyway, why would there be a brokered convention?

As far as orange jumpsuits, I'll believe it when I see it. We've heard this about Clinton a hundred times before. Some looming scandal is going to take her down. Never happens. Remember how the Benghazi hearings were supposed to be some kind of bombshell? Nobody cared. The House Republicans care about this stuff way more than the general public does.

The question isn't whether Sanders can get the nomination, the question is whether Clinton can win nationally.

Clinton v Trump/Cruz, I think she strolls to the White House no problem. Clinton v Rubio, however, and I think she gets nervous.

This is the irony about this race. Despite the huge electoral vote advantage she has going into the race Clinton is a vulnerable candidate, especially in swing states. The Republicans may very well hand her the keys to the WH simply because they can't seem to nominate a reasonable candidate. Amazing what has happened to that party.

Amusing assessment.   Good luck with your hillary theory--though you may want to check out the Sheldon Silver story to see how a "I'll believe it when I see it" theory evolves. 

Rubio will probably win this thing.

Uncle Al? They already have an "uncle" of their own last I checked...................... .......and he straight up KILLED a guy last week

[cinnamon synonym]

As was explained to you, the initial leaked reports that Clinton was being investigated were incorrect. That the FBI is conducting an investigation into the overall matter is correct, but she is not the target of an investigation; that was a retracted story. I realize that you don't have the time or energy to get these basic facts correct, even when it was explained to you over five weeks ago, but it is what it is.

And, as I explained to you before, I am not a fan of Clinton. You may find that you will be less disappointed with reality when you base your opinions on what is occurring, as opposed to what you want to believe.
 popcorn.

Believe what you want to believe as well, but admit that maybe you drank the koolaid. Admitting you are not a Clinton fan is the first step.

We probably wont be hearing from this poster again since it is now obvious that Hillary, herself is the "subject" of the FBI criminal investigation.

This poster was wrong and misguided.

[loki13]

As was explained to you, the initial leaked reports that Clinton was being investigated were incorrect. That the FBI is conducting an investigation into the overall matter is correct, but she is not the target of an investigation; that was a retracted story. I realize that you don't have the time or energy to get these basic facts correct, even when it was explained to you over five weeks ago, but it is what it is.

And, as I explained to you before, I am not a fan of Clinton. You may find that you will be less disappointed with reality when you base your opinions on what is occurring, as opposed to what you want to believe.
 popcorn.

Believe what you want to believe as well, but admit that maybe you drank the koolaid. Admitting you are not a Clinton fan is the first step.

We probably wont be hearing from this poster again since it is now obvious that Hillary, herself is the "subject" of the FBI criminal investigation.

This poster was wrong and misguided.

I don't keep posting here because it just keeps the troll (you) alive. You have nothing to say about any legal issue, and your knowledge of the law, or politics, or of anything barely rises to the level of the average youtube commenter.

But to accept your challenge, again, my original post was correct. The story you kept citing was retracted. Moreover, the original contention was correct. Clinton is not the subject of any investigation. The investigation is into the overall matter. There was a Fox News report, citing "sources," but nothing else, and you've misconstrued that as well.

As for hearing from me, I continue to be active commenting on legal topics. You, on the other hand, continue to occasionally troll here with bad information. So I'm not going to bother posting again, other than noting that you refused my bet because you don't actually believe the BS you are peddling.

So go peddle it somewhere else, where people are gullible and you might come off as knowledgeable. Well, I don't if there is any place that the second criterion would be met, but you get the idea. Wait ... you probably don't.

[Groundhog]

So, did anyone watch the Republican debate?