Corbyn trounced the establishment candidates in the UK and it looks like the US is similarly dissatisfied with its ruling classes. The scion of the Bush dynasty has become a blip in the polls against the (still rich but) outsider Trump. The candidate from the house of Clinton is in free fall too with a Socialist rising in the blue corner. Ron Paul had a good crack at breaking the rule of the party bosses last time round but now it looks like the dams are busting and if there were mavericks leading both parties come the election there could finally be some real change.
See? Here's where it gets difficult... Trump <> Clinton == Trump (sorry, anyone BUT Hillary) Trump <> Bernie == Trump (by a much smaller margin albeit) because I believe this country can't stand another 4-8 years of Socialist ideals. Any other Republican <> Clinton == ANY other Republican Any other Republican <> Bernie == Very tough call for me, as I don't care for most of the Republicans they put on the plate this cycle... Then again, the Republicans have been totally fucked for legitimate candidates for almost a decade now...
you need to learn more about Bernie http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/20/3693380/bernie-sanders-private-prisons/
I could possibly point you to dozens of such slanted articles written by fanboys on every candidate, so I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone's got pluses and minuses. Except Hillary and Trump that is. Trump -- so far -- is just a carnival barker distraction working towards getting Hillary elected...
Jeremy Corbyn is the most radical Labour leader in the party's history. "Mr Corbyn opposes Nato, Britain's nuclear deterrent and any controls on immigration. He refused to support the Falklands War, backed the right of Iraqi insurgents to target British troops and, more recently, has defended Vladimir Putin, ISIS and Palestinian terrorists."
Its due to the Scottish Nationalist taking the Labour seats in scotland, the result is, whats left of Labour is going hard left He's like Bernie Sanders Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion "His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges. To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff."
Now you know that the owners of the daily mail are worried about whether they will get to keep all their money, but you still no nothing about Corbyn. What's driving his popularity is he threatens the oligarchy that's been taking all the people's stuff and then telling them they have to tighten their belts more. What's driving his popularity is he is proposing returning the people's wealth and power back to them. The wealthy classes that own the presses are not going to write nice things about him when they don't have to.
It's because people are taking the Labour party back from the conservatives that infiltrated it and took it over. And now you know that the owners of the Wall Street Journal fear Bernie Sanders. But the US NEEDS to spend large amounts of money on roads and bridges ... and sewers and water systems and other infrastructure because it's all getting old. Governments for years have been making false savings by not paying for proper maintenance. Not only does the US have a huge fiscal debt but it also has a huge infrastructure debt and the more that rots the more it's going to cost the economy over time. But spending a bunch of money on infrastructure will boost the economy directly by getting people working and making decent incomes and subsequently by business benefiting from the improved infrastructure. In fact the whole thing could probably have been paid for out of the money that was used to bail out the banks or the money that's been spent trying to develop an aeroplane that can't win a dogfight against planes you've already got. A government run healthcare program would directly stimulate the economy by leaving more money in people's pockets than if they had to continue buying private insurance and would ultimately save the economy since per capita cost of public systems around the world is generally half the cost of private systems (coz private systems spend a lot of money on mansions and yachts ... but not for patients). I presume the $6.5 b8illion is taxes on revenue streams existing but not currently tapped. That's not bad. As a shareholder in the country you should be glad that it'd be bringing in more revenue (especially since, if you earn less than a few million a year it's not going to be coming out of your pocket). The beauty of taxes is that you spend them back out into the economy and tax them again, so I would imagine the taxes outlined don't include taxes that would be made available from an improving economy.
Damn straight. The US will try to sink the economy of anyone who tries to get out of their economic grip.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/15/thi...anderss_speech_at_liberty_university_matters/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-Sanders-speech-at-Liberty-U?detail=facebook#
The use of the word "another" in the above quote gives the impression that your country has recently lived through several years of socialist ideals when it quite clearly has done nothing of the sort. I can only assume you're referring to Obama who is about as socialist as Thatcher was.
I don't see how that would be a scary proposition to a country that USED to be the biggest empire in the world and the pre-eminent industrial power.
Maybe not to this country but how about its former colonies? @ metalman Sweden, which Bernie Sanders frequently references along with other Scandinavian countries, seems to be doing all right. They even have a higher percentage of entrepreneurs than the U.S. Whether that is because of their more extensive social safety net or despite it depends on one´s political views, I suppose.
