2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: If the Democratic Party continues to go [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)My emphasis was that Eisenhower who was president during better economic times before the Reagan Revolution screwed the middle class of our country, took stances more "socialist" than just about any of the candidates today. Bernie himself as I noted in the article said that Eisenhower was more socialist than he was in his tax policies. Now whether Bernie is "more" or "less" socialist than Eisenhower isn't really the issue in my book. It is that on a relative scale in those times, Americans when they had a decent middle class liked leaders, Republican or Democratic, that had more socialist policies than the corporate owned politicians in both parties today.
Yes, the Kochs want it to stay that way, and have paid politicians to put their servants on the Supreme Court and also in congress to set the rules so that bribery is no longer a crime and our government is for sale to them instead of working for us the voters.
You might like that, but many in BOTH parties are getting fed up with that. That's why there's even more populist tendencies in the Republican party going after candidates less tied to the financial oligarchy like Trump, even if they themselves have a lot of flaws that are unacceptable to most of us that don't want their Tea Party crap too.
It is your OPINION that most people favor Clinton. Maybe most KNOW her just like more KNEW her at this point in 2007 as well. But that is not the same thing. And it is way too early for those of us who feel that this country needs a change like Bernie to give up, no matter what those who seem to LIKE oligarchic rule want to push on to us. Why do you like those that don't want to stop oligarchic power?