Why It Is Mathematically Impossible for Trump to win the White House

You can twist words all you want but you can't evade the truth. Sanders calls himself a socialist. The word democratic is an adjective that further describes his socialism. He has repeatedly throughout his public carrier praisedSocialist states like Cuba, Nicaragua and others. He has held up as icons the Castros, Sandinistas and others. His track record is very clear. He sees every problem as something government can solve better than the private sector. His solution is always to throw more government and money at it. It sort of like having only a hammer as a tool. Pretty soon everything looks like a nail.
One point of clarification NC. I don't think Bernie is anti- democratic
I don't know how you can find common ideas between Bernie and Kasich. The only thing they have in common is believing in the election process. There is no logical way you can support them both and have any consistency.

 

Common ideas are over rated, I look more for leadership qualities and I see the best in Bernie and Kasich. Political philosophies are over rated in a President unless you are talking about Supreme Court nominees. The executive branch is limited in it's scope of power by the checks and balances of our constitution so no President will ever be allowed to enact their full agenda; just isn't going to happen.

You seem pretty hell bent to label me as something other than what I claim to be, but all of the name calling in the world cannot make it so. I've been very clear that I find tenets of socialism appealing in the form of social programs within a capitalistic, democratic society. I am a business owner so the notion that I want to share my profits with everybody is ridiculous....but paying a higher tax rate for the upper reaches of my income in order to promote the greater good is being a good citizen imo. During our most prosperous periods in the 50's and 60's our top marginal rate was 70-90% and we were able to build the worlds finest infrastructure and could afford to take care of our most vulnerable.....the disabled and elderly while maintaining the worlds strongest military and set the bar for space exploration and scientific discovery. No one is calling Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson or any of the congress that served in that era socialists are they?

 

Just because Sanders does not understand social economic thought systems doesn't me an I am going to be dragged down with him. He is not a socialist. He advocates Nordic model social democracy, also called welfare capitalism, which in no way shape or form is socialism. It lacks the central tenant of socialism, state ownership and control of the means of production. There is not one Bernie Sanders proposal which is socialist. In fact his proposals all require private ownership.

Don't be part of the ignorance train. Bernie Sanders is an ignorant old man with terrible ideas, and no understanding of how an economy functions. That does not make him a socialist.

 

One thing about the Ol kook that I will give him is... hee is the only person running who actually believes the garbage spewing out of his mouth.

 

north korea is democratic.

those names don't mean anything.

 

god, people should stop referring to this period in US history as some sort of benchmark. the rest of the developed world had been decimated, you could have had a president trump and still been prosperous.

 

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Numbers taken out of context are meaningless. I'm not going to give you another history lesson NC but the post WW2 era was so out of balance. Take a look at the GDP of the US vs every country in the world. The difference made us the one true economic superpower. That was primarily the result of the fact that we were the one country whose prosperity grew due to the war. All others were physically devastated. As gumborue said even with Trump we would have been prosperous. Hell even with the Bern we might not have run onto the rocks.

 

Piss off Winston. You aren't qualified to give me a lesson in anything, much less history. You can try and shove aside the gross amount of data that showed how effective government was during that era but the facts are the facts: investment spending was the catalyst, not the dumb luck of being the last man standing. The GI Bill was one of the main drivers of the economy because for the first time ever the masses had access to a college education. Sound familiar? What about the cheap oil we were pumping out of the ground domestically back then? Guess what? Those were government subsidized. Further, the investment in scientific research sparked perhaps the greatest boom in domestic technology that has ever happened because of NASA and our space program. You can thank that investment for the Microwave, software from the Apollo missions was the precursor to credit card swipe machines that we use today, freeze dried foods, cooling suits like race car drivers wear.....and these are just a drop in the bucket compared to the advent of the integrated circuit, the forebearer of the microchip that helped make Silicon Valley what it is today. All of this fails to mention that we built the interstate highway system during this era also.....and yep, with government funds too. So go ahead and try to dismiss the prosperity of that era....just like you do with every other thing that doesn't adhere to strict, narrow little conservative doctrine. You can create your own reality and facts when you are with your conservative friends but don't try throwing that ignorant shit at me. I know better.

 

You're like the last of the Bourbons Talleyrand described as "Forgetting nothing and learning nothing ." You totally ignore the fact that because the US had all the money, including ALL of Great Britain's gold reserves, because our great and overwhelming industrial strength whatever we manufactured we sold at a tremendous profit. I remember clearly as my father was a manager for Allis Chalmers one of those powerhouses. These were the conditios allowed us to do all of these things. Yes the program's you listed were helpful and were great.
I'm as supportive of the need for infrastructure investment and R &D on the scale of the 50's & 60's as you are. They are the font of the future.
The point I made is that the economic conditions of that time are totally different than today. We spend our taxes on social programs that maybe well intentioned add nothing to our prosperity. The debt service takes a larger and larger share of the budget. The corporate structure is totally different. Allis Chalmers foundered on poor management and inability to compete as did other similar companies like Ingersol Rand, Westinghouse and others and were broken up and sold to foreign companies. Siemens purchased parts of all 3 companies and invested in the country adding jobs by multiples.
You've made a fatuous comparison with only headline knowledge. You need to learn much more than the headlines.