Thread: Clinton and Sanders are the onlt 2 people running and were tied in the polls

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Semantics. Bernie has suggested Wall Street and the 1% to pay for policies on these issues. Which the people polled above would support.

Contrary to Republican dogma, polls show that the American people strongly support higher taxes to reduce the deficit and improve income inequality. Following are 19 different polls since the first of the year that say so.

Americans Support Higher Taxes. Really. | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

The difference between issues and policies isn't semantics. Your link says that lots of people support higher taxes on someone else, those making over 250k. I support raising taxes on you, not me. That invalidates the polling. You can spin this any way you want. Socialism only works until you run out of someone else money.

Originally Posted by Smeagol

If Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were the only 2 candidates and both had a equal chance at winning, who would you rather see become President?

Sanders is saying some appealing things but I think a lot of people who might want him to win think they'd be throwing their vote away, seeing him as an impossible long-shot candidate. So, for the sake of argument suppose the polls indicated Sanders was just as likely to win as Clinton.

I would pick neither, and be glad I didn't have a vote. These are two of the most unappealing personalities, up there with Ted Cruz, in American politics today. Each is so full of their own personal righteousness that four years of either one would make Obama's egomaniacal run seem mild in comparison.

Originally Posted by sawdust

The difference between issues and policies isn't semantics. Your link says that lots of people support higher taxes on someone else, those making over 250k. I support raising taxes on you, not me. That invalidates the polling. You can spin this any way you want. Socialism only works until you run out of someone else money.

Socialist program's have been working very well in America for a very long time. And we all benefit from them, and they're not going away.

It would be fantastic to have an actual liberal in the white house instead of pro-corporate, pro-military industrial complex centrists.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Socialist program's have been working very well in America for a very long time. And we all benefit from them, and they're not going away.

Sure, the post office is supposed to be revenue neutral and it loses billions annually. Sure, we get our mail so for you it may seem to work well but it's an economic failure. We haven't yet run out of other peoples money.

Originally Posted by Smeagol

Sanders is saying some appealing things but I think a lot of people who might want him to win think they'd be throwing their vote away, seeing him as an impossible long-shot candidate. So, for the sake of argument suppose the polls indicated Sanders was just as likely to win as Clinton.

Personally, I'd rather vote for a candidate whose positions I support even if they have no chance of winning over a candidate I don't like who can win. So it's easily a vote for Sanders for me.

Although I will add that I do have an issue with Sanders' rhetorical style, and it's really something that the American left as a whole has to address. "They do it Canada/Scandinavia/other western democracy so we should here" doesn't sell well with voters, which I think is partially evidenced by Sawdust's "Sanders can go to Sweden" comment, which is probably a sentiment felt by many voters. Who really cares whether or not x program works in another country? If you're going to portray an idea as a foreign implant, people aren't going to like it.