Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders very close in Iowa race

[Born To Slay 10,996]

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/****-morris-hillary-email/2015/12/23/id/706992/

According to this, Hilary leads Bernie 50-45 in the the state of Iowa, this is the closest it's ever been between the two. What do you think of this?

[Bad Monster Kid 13,140]

This could be 2008 all over again for Hillary. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Slay  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

15 minutes ago, Bad Monster Kid said:

This could be 2008 all over again for Hillary. 

 As much as I want Bernie to win, that would be so tragic omg  

SNL, all their jokes about Hillary DEFINITELY winning the presidency, Kate McKinnon having more time to shine as Hillary as President would be so hilarious

But Bernie will probably be better for the country  

[Janet 1,417]

cmon Bern

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

I do believe Bernie can pull an upset over Hillary in either Iowa or New Hampshire, but after that he will have a hard time with the other southern states considering Clinton has stronger support from minorities. Bernie Sanders will also struggle with Super Tuesday. 

[socotra 3,357]

I 100% believe he will be our next president. Long road ahead, but I know he can pull it off. 

[Economy 52,845]

If he won... Nothing would happen in congress cause even democrats think hes too left winged and they wouldnt approve squat

 

yall want him to win to make "change" but seriously less would happeb probably than if Hilary won just cause Beenie is too much of an outcast in politics

[socotra 3,357]

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

If he won... Nothing would happen in congress cause even democrats think hes too left winged and they wouldnt approve squat

 

yall want him to win to make "change" but seriously less would happeb probably than if Hilary won just cause Beenie is too much of an outcast in politics

Hillary Clinton would face the same, if not more, obstructionism from the Republican Party as President Obama has. Clinton is heavily damaged goods. Her entire political career she's been involved in a slew of scandals, and she is a high-ranked member of the Washington elite. The Spanish proved it last week in their elections that they are sick of corruption in government and establishment politics. The sentiment in similar here in the United States, and I truly believe Bernie will win.

However, you are right - he cannot invoke ALL the change by himself, and that's not how the American system works (I think a parliamentary system in the U.S. would work substantially better than what our Constitution has designed, but I digress). We do need a Congress that is willing to work alongside him, and I think that if the Democrats were to retake both chambers, Bernie would be an extraordinarily effective president - one of the best in modern American history. 

Even if the Congress remains in Republican hands, Sanders has crossover appeal. He's worked in Congress for many years, he's an older and respected congressman, and he's white. I have to be honest, but I do believe some members of the GOP are a little bit racist. 

I think that Bernie can be the great unifier for the U.S. that President Obama had hoped he would be, and I really think he can lead and implement real change in the States.

[Economy 52,845]

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

Hillary Clinton would face the same, if not more, obstructionism from the Republican Party as President Obama has. Clinton is heavily damaged goods. Her entire political career she's been involved in a slew of scandals, and she is a high-ranked member of the Washington elite. The Spanish proved it last week in their elections that they are sick of corruption in government and establishment politics. The sentiment in similar here in the United States, and I truly believe Bernie will win.

However, you are right - he cannot invoke ALL the change by himself, and that's not how the American system works (I think a parliamentary system in the U.S. would work substantially better than what our Constitution has designed, but I digress). We do need a Congress that is willing to work alongside him, and I think that if the Democrats were to retake both chambers, Bernie would be an extraordinarily effective president - one of the best in modern American history. 

Even if the Congress remains in Republican hands, Sanders has crossover appeal. He's worked in Congress for many years, he's an older and respected congressman, and he's white. I have to be honest, but I do believe some members of the GOP are a little bit racist. 

I think that Bernie can be the great unifier for the U.S. that President Obama had hoped he would be, and I really think he can lead and implement real change in the States.

I dont know, being realistic here i just dont know

 

your talking about bringing borderline socialism into a society that has never acccepted that and its politics dont reflect it. There would be significant friction

 

but who knows i could be wrong

 

As for parliamentry system I tell you it has its advantages and disadvantages...

 

The party leader has more power in the party. So the party that wins, its leader becomes the Prime Minister and his party usually will follow whatever he wants unlike in the US where often party leaders are screwed even by their own party

 

One disadvantage, here in Canada we dont get to choose our party leaders. We elect party MPs but the party must vote among themselves for a party leader in which we get no say. Then we vote for party seats but the party leader is already chosen for us

 

Also parliament is boss during majority Governments. They rule for 5 years with little disruption or dysfunction...

 

But during minority governments things are very difficult to get done and elections can happen every 2 years so you never know where politics is going. And since we have 3 major parties (in USA you have only two so maybe less of an ossue for you) for us a majority Government is difficult to get  

 

sometimes we get it tho. Our last government was majority and our current government also got majority thankgod!

[socotra 3,357]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

I dont know, being realistic here i just dont know

 

your talking about bringing borderline socialism into a society that has never acccepted that and its politics dont reflect it. There would be significant friction

 

but who knows i could be wrong

 

As for parliamentry system I tell you it has its advantages and disadvantages...

 

The party leader has more power in the party. So the party that wins, its leader becomes the Prime Minister and his party usually will follow whatever he wants unlike in the US where often party leaders are screwed even by their own party

 

One disadvantage, here in Canada we dont get to choose our party leaders. We elect party MPs but the party must vote among themselves for a party leader in which we get no say. Then we vote for party seats but the party leader is already chosen for us

 

Also parliament is boss during majority Governments. They rule for 5 years with little disruption or dysfunction...

 

But during minority governments things are very difficult to get done and elections can happen every 2 years so you never know where politics is going. And since we have 3 major parties (in USA you have only two so maybe less of an ossue for you) for us a majority Government is difficult to get  

 

sometimes we get it tho. Our last government was majority and our current government also got majority thankgod!

I do know how parliamentary systems work (and of course, they vary, because in Spain it's 4 years). :P I still believe that some variation of a parliamentary system in the United States would work more efficiently than what governs us now. Parliamentary systems, by virtue of being a parliament, are partisan. MPs can act partisan - the majority governs, whereas the opposition says why they can do a better job of governing than the majority. They can do this, because (unless there is a coalition government or a minority government) the majority party is in charge of both the executive branch and legislative branch of government. The U.S. government was built to separate those powers, and by doing that, the opportunity for gridlock is made available between A.) Both chambers of Congress B.) Congress and the Presidency C.) All three branches. I'm getting off topic though, you and I can discuss that in private. :P 

I totally understand it's "unrealistic," but so was electing a black guy in a country that has historically had deep racial division. If you really think about it and put it into historical context, I don't think democratic socialism is as contrary to "Western ideals" as you would think. People see "socialism" and are immediately horrified because they think of the Soviet Union and authoritarianism. It's not like that.

[Economy 52,845]

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

I do know how parliamentary systems work (and of course, they vary, because in Spain it's 4 years). :P I still believe that some variation of a parliamentary system in the United States would work more efficiently than what governs us now. Parliamentary systems, by virtue of being a parliament, are partisan. MPs can act partisan - the majority governs, whereas the opposition says why they can do a better job of governing than the majority. They can do this, because (unless there is a coalition government or a minority government) the majority party is in charge of both the executive branch and legislative branch of government. The U.S. government was built to separate those powers, and by doing that, the opportunity for gridlock is made available between A.) Both chambers of Congress B.) Congress and the Presidency C.) All three branches. I'm getting off topic though, you and I can discuss that in private. :P 

I totally understand it's "unrealistic," but so was electing a black guy in a country that has historically had deep racial division. If you really think about it and put it into historical context, I don't think democratic socialism is as contrary to "Western ideals" as you would think. People see "socialism" and are immediately horrified because they think of the Soviet Union and authoritarianism. It's not like that.

Well its a little more complicated than electing a black man. True that was a challange. But getting a man to work with a complicated congress etc and make big changes in that direction is a totally different level

 

Also i hate to say it but i just dont know if the US could pull of socialism tbh and i have my reasons for thinking that.

 

Some ppl think i outright think socialism is bad which is not true. Its an alternative strategy of governing to capitalism that can work also and has advantages to traditional capitalism...

 

but because socialism involves Government making more decisions on rules and how things should be run, and more taxes and spending putting more wealth of the Nation in the Governments hands... To work well it also requires more competence, less gridlock, a government that really knows what its doing etc

 

some Countries like in Scandinavia have successfully made it work. But socialism when it fails can become real ugly. Southern Europe or even worse Venezuela are examples of what can happen with poor left-wing policies when rules are thought out poorly and higher spending is misallocated draining tax wealth away from people and businesses for nothing

 

Also the US being so large in size makes more planning challanging because the economy varies so much more from area to area and policies to benefit everyone is much harder so socialism in the US may be harder to work than say in European Nations