Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging Clinton and Defeating Republicans. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;48418049]We will not be stupid enough to elect Clinton, Sanders will win because people are smarter then they used to be. You people don't even know how much the internet is used by old people now and it's general base information about Clinton that she is a dumbass. If not, at least let me think that up until the moment she gets elected so I can pretend it never happened.[/QUOTE] you forget that the internet is just as much a tool for disinformation. for example, there's a whole sphere of new web-based right-wing media that insulates itself and fosters extremism, then demands that same extremism of GOP politicians to great effect. it's basically left relative moderates and leaders of the GOP establishment powerless to act

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48417906]I've seen left wing politics in your country and I can't say I'm impressed. My issue with left wing economics is that it's too short-sighted. It always seems to be spend this now and we'll worry about the costs it creates later. It's a viscious cycle.[/QUOTE] Oh please, ever since the Tories have had power (and these guys aren't even right wing compared to the Republicans, they're closer to the Democrats on average) we've had to suffer under austerity. As a result of them insisting "nope we can't spend money, nuh uh, nope not going to make more money just spend less" the lower classes have fucking suffered something fierce, our once world leading healthcare has started to struggle to run efficiently enough and the job market has been trash. Of course all of these problems are blamed on "the fuckin mussies bruv" because the media here is largely owned by those with Tory interests who would love nothing more than to stir shit up about anything to the left of Cameron and his cronies. It's not short sighted to spend the money you have now on improving public services. Improved services allow for a more ready and flexible work force, a happier population and opens up a number of jobs in the public sector to fulfil the demand created by the services not sucking shit. Hoarding your money in some naive attempt to have the most (but do nothing with it) is silly in the global scale of things. Personal scale? Sure. But a government is nothing like personal savings.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48417906]I've seen left wing politics in your country and I can't say I'm impressed. My issue with left wing economics is that it's too short-sighted. It always seems to be spend this now and we'll worry about the costs it creates later. It's a viscious cycle.[/QUOTE] Right wing economic politics are the same fucking thing, only instead of spending more it's tax less. You end up with the same deficit (or more) but you also end up shitting all over the lower class and the country's infrastructure. The real solution is to have the country's natural resources owned by the government, like Norway has (and they're literally overflowing with money). But the corporations that own those resources now are monstrous parasites that can't be killed by a force as small and weak as American's corrupt democratic system and under-educated population.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48419182]The real solution is to have the country's natural resources owned by the government, like Norway has (and they're literally overflowing with money). But the corporations that own those resources now are monstrous parasites that can't be killed by a force as small and weak as American's corrupt democratic system and under-educated population.[/QUOTE] It seems you're using the words "natural resources" in place of the word "oil," because that's why Norway is doing so well. Also, those corrupt private corporations are the people who pioneered and enabled the usage of oil. You can't just ignore the past when talking about these sorts of things.

[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;48418049]We will not be stupid enough to elect Clinton, Sanders will win because people are smarter then they used to be. You people don't even know how much the internet is used by old people now and it's general base information about Clinton that she is a dumbass. If not, at least let me think that up until the moment she gets elected so I can pretend it never happened.[/QUOTE] Sorry but that isn't reality. Sanders is fighting an uphill battle and needs actual activists participating on a local level. If you actually care about him getting elected you should participate in the campaign.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48417906]I've seen left wing politics in your country and I can't say I'm impressed. My issue with left wing economics is that it's too short-sighted. It always seems to be spend this now and we'll worry about the costs it creates later. It's a viscious cycle.[/QUOTE] first, you're probably thinking of keynesian economics, which by definition is supportive of a mixed economy. second, keynesian economics says to use government spending and stimulus in times of recession, then pay for it when the economy starts growing again. a lot of people thought that the basic premises of keynes' work were disproven by stagflation in the 1970s, but the notion is fallacious. the problems of the 70's were caused by a decrease in aggregate supply, while the problems of the 1930's and late 2000's were caused by a decrease in aggregate demand. keynesian economics only suggests that fiscal policy (i.e. direct stimulus from the government) can succeed in the latter case, not the former. third, while the right-wing talks of shrinking the size of government, no person has ever successfully done so in a meaningful capacity in the united states. social security, medicare, and medicaid make up huge portions of federal spending, yet no politician in their right mind would actually try to cut or remove those programs, because they're insanely popular with people across political boundaries. the only reductions that actually took place were reforms under the clinton administration regarding programs like TANF, and those programs make up a fraction of overall spending.