Is this the best political ad in the US ever created?

You must be easily manipulated. His immigration policy is the worst i have seen in a long time. But all sides suck on it.

@Maroxad: You don't respect others peoples right to disagree, do you?You have done alot of personal attacks on anybody who dares question you.

We live in a society that views Obamacare as evil socialism while singing the praises of Medicare. There is not nuanced understanding of these things because there is barely any basic understanding of these things. When people hear Bernie say he's a Democratic Socialist all they hear is "Socialist", and if he makes it past the primary it will be his death knell.

If I didnt respect their right to disagree, I would try to silence them or try to suppress their speech. Pointing out the stupidity in opinions, is not trying to censor those opinions. When someone has a low post count and recently joined. I tend to suspect things. Especially as this guy began by insulting others.

The people I do that to have had a history of attacking others. I am merely showing them the respect they have shown others ;)

Cleek's Law in action,

"Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily."

1. A zygote is not a baby. Just like a seed is not a seedling.
2. As for veterans, I will link to this. http://correctrecord.org/the-gop-on-veterans-issues/ next!
3. Guess what Sanders is trying to fix and Trump wants to fix?

Murder is a legal term that concerns itself with the killing of a person. Because personhood is not applied to a tissues, abortion is not murder.

So you are willingto admit now that zygotes are not babies.

Good, good.

Yes, you are terminating a pregnancy. But the other party involved does not have a sentience, nor any self awareness during the time most abortions take place. Therefore, from a suffering perspective, there is no suffering on the other part. The other party never realized it existed in the first place.

No matter how you look at it. Abortion is not murder, unless you were to live in a state which grants personhood to zygotes. But utlimately, how will you define personhood, it is a question debated by philosphers (and lawmakers) even today.

@evanmorrowind: He provided a loose definition of murder, explained why abortion is not murder by definition, and then proceeded to explain why he thinks that, from an ethical perspective, abortion is not similar to murder regardless of whether it is or is not technically murder.

Confronted with these arguments, an ad hominem attack followed by a blind assertion that murder is murder is not a serious rebuttal in any way, shape, or form.

@mattbbpl: Well said.

Its worth noting that most people (even on the left) want to reduce abortions. However, what we want to do is do it in an intelligent manner. Remove the need for women to abort children. All that will achieved through banning abortion is shifting them over to getting illegal and unsafe abortions. Here is what I would do to curb abortions.

• Provide people with easy access to birth control (especially teenagers)
• Provide comprehensive sex education to everyone.
• Improve standards of living for the poor, so they wont be as prone to get abortions.

Of course, this will not entirely nullify abortions. But should help decrease them.

"So is killing babies ok?"

"abortion is killing babies even if they are zygotes"

Sure sounds like it to me.

The status quo is massive gridlock and partisanship, the status quo is political weakness instead of political courage.

Hilary is a vote for the status quo, baby steps here and there, maybe a bit of backsliding. The right seems to hate Hilary more than any nominee in a long time and her own party isn't enthusiastic about her, I don't see her getting anything done, except maybe a few things that are primarily Republican issues and ideas like her husband (tax cuts, welfare reform, crime bills and a balanced budget were his accomplishments). Her idea of negotiating seems to be to give up half the ground before the negotiation starts for fear of overstepping (let's not fight for a public option in the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan, shall we). Opening Cuba and the nuclear agreement with Iran happened on Kerry's watch rather than hers for many reasons, but I don't know if she would have had the courage. Militarism is easy for a politician, trusting diplomacy takes strength and she had an opportunity to show that strength as Secretary of State and in her vote on Iraq and I didn't see much of it.

If the socialist Bernie actually won the presidency, it would mean ideas would be taken seriously that haven't been taken seriously since the Reagan revolution began. It would mean a shake up of the status quo, and it would be difficult to envision how that would settle out or how Republicans would adapt to it. And if he won amidst a Republican party civil war with a Trump nominee and a potential wave election, it may represent a once in a century opportunity for a tax system progressive enough to support removing health, educational opportunity, and justice out of the free market where they have no business being, as well as securing the retirement safety net and implementing his 72 billion dollar infrastructure bill.

I will vote for Hilary over a Republican if only for the justices she'll pick and the fact she doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against using government for betterment at a time when our national infrastructure is a shambles, but please don't ask me to be thrilled about it.

Your ageism is just ignorance or foolishness. Many people in their 80s remain lucid, and depending on genetics and environmental factors infinitely more intelligent and wise than most of their younger counterparts.

Bernie Sanders simply pulls on heartstrings. He has no logic and no understanding of the actual world. He's never owned a business. He's never been responsible for a payroll. His net worth is minuscule for a 74 year old man who is supposed to be a professional. And in his 25 year career in the Senate, he has managed to pass 3 bills.

In all honesty, he is completely out of touch with the vast majority of people and how they live their lives. He has survived in the world of the social worker and academia. And while some of his positions are laudable and even noble, they are also foolishly naive. If ha hadn't gained public office, he would have been that kookly old hippie that hangs out at the library and wears flip flops year round.

Aren't those aspects that would make him more in touch with the common man?

No, because the average person actually holds a job and wants to make money.

None of those preclude him actually doing so.

Apparently they do because he never really has. His life is basically talking about social issues and getting elected. He was a poor carpenter. A poor writer. He lived off unemployment. And he never wanted to do any of these things. All he's ever wanted to do is talk about social issues.

Being a Senator seems like a pretty important job.

Other than that, it seems he held a number of jobs previously. Discounting them as "poor" seems rather petty.

I don't understand your objection to jobs that deal with "social issues." My sister used to work as a social worker - does that not count as a job?

I didn't discount them as poor. I discounted his capability in that job. He was terrible at them. Being a social workers is not the same as pontificating on social issues. Ghandi spent his whole life pontificating on social issues. Doesn't mean I want him running my country. Same as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not bad people, mind you. But there is nothing in their lives that I would want to be an administrator of the government.

My problem is that he has never really existed in the real world. He never cared about making money or putting food on the table. Never cared about developing a profession. He simply wants to point out all the problems of that society and, for the most part, blame them on the greedy rich people.

How does someone like Trump, for example, have a leg up in that regard?

Donald Trump is a successful businessman.

For being so "out of touch", he sure has managed to resonate with a lot of people.

And I disagree about the no logic bit. His policies are resonably coherrent unlike Hillary, he has not repeatedly voted in favor of disasterous things (War in Iraq). Bernie Sanders has been much less prone to voting for bad decisions like that.

The point of the conversation was about how Sanders' history made him out of touch with the populace. I fail to see how Trump's history makes him more in touch.

It doesnt. Sanders is definately not out of touch with reality, especially considering with how Sander's policies lie in touch with what the US population wants.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10904988/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-poll

Is he perfectly in touch with reality? Hell no! However, he is nowhere near as delusional as Donald Trump is.

A lot young people. If you look at his demographics, Sanders resonates with young people and retired people. In other words, the people in the country that aren't worried about taking care of their families. Or, in other words, the majority of people who actually work in this country.

Sanders supported bombing in Kosovo and then had anti-war demonstrators arrested when the protested in his office. In 2001, he supported the war in Afghanistan, and then in 2003, he supported resolutions that gave GWB support in the Iraq War and the larger "war on terror." In fact, he has never voted against the Iraq War nor any appropriations bills for that war. He voted against immigration reform in 2007 and voted to protect the Minutemen private militias that patrolled the border with Mexico. In fact, he's voted with the Democratic Party over 96% of the time. He voted for HR 921 giving support to Israel's war with Lebanon. And he refused to support the impeachment of GWB, even though resolutions for such an impeachment swept through Vermont in 2006.

Sanders lives off pulling heart strings. He offers no real plans for his ideas, nor any way to get them passed in Congress. He simply promises free things to people and blames rich corporations.

Trump is not a successful businessman. He is someone who inherited millions and has since filed four bankruptcies. Life is easy when you are a rich mans son.

Pretty much. Though filing for bankruptcy is a legal matter and usually done as part of a restructure of some kind. Still, yes, he, like Hillary Clinton, was born with a silver spoon. Still, he has a better understanding of economics than Sanders or Cruz.

Sounds like Jesus to me. LOL.

And yet, he got richer in the process.

His policies actually dont get much support among the senior citizens. They are one of his weaker groups actually.

And Sanders voted against the war in iraq.

Sanders biggest issue will be getting his ideas past congress. But other than that, he is merely implementing ideas that were successful in europe. Single Payer systems for instance are considerably more efficient than the rather poor implementation that is Obamacare.

Some of the things you said are correct though. Like voting in favor of War in Afghanistan.

I believe its time for a female christ, dont u think ... but this occured to me only a few days ago ... not that I have any hand in the way things are going to happen tho ..

@evanmorrowind: I'm an electrician working for a Fortune 500 company and have been there twenty years and enjoy my work. I'm voting for Bernie and my Union has indorced him. What is this free stuff you refer to?

You're in a union, though. You're used to free stuff.

/sarcasm

@evanmorrowind: What do you think I'm lying about?

Here is a link from my union:

http://www.usw.org/blog/2016/bernie-sanders-get-walmart-off-of-welfare

@evanmorrowind: Really? LOL.

Well either way, there is a link from a union representing people you can't deny have jobs wether you think I'm one or not.

It was a nicely put together ad. Sad that the video embellishes a clear entitlement misdirection with the country right now. What the country can do for you, instead what you can do for your country.

@Stevo_the_gamer: What can I do for my country? Work myself to an early grave receiving minimal pay for maximum profit to my employer until he decides to move to China where he wont have to pay his workers a living wage? And that would make this Country great again how?

Is it too much to ask for a fair shake from a life full of labor making someone else rich?

Mindset is everything; work ethics. I worked full-time while attending college full time, and with the benefits of working hard to earn scholarships/grants, two years of university (first two years were done at a community college) did not break the bank nor send me into any mountain of debt. I was able to excel in getting a job, bought a home that was under budget, paid off two cars, and now have less than 13 years on a mortgage.

All of which started off making $7 an hour as a teen. I didn't ask for a fair shake, I earned it.

I've worked twenty years in a highly dangerous job and have made a better living than most, I was lucky. A lot of people aren't lucky. There are not enough good jobs for everyone. What about those who slip through the cracks? The difference between you and I is that I care about those less fortunate than myself. Healthcare is the least people deserve. People deserve jobs such as you and I have. They aren't there for everyone. They could be.

The egalitarian mindset has the tendency to not see the forest for the trees. People have the right to earn said good jobs, not to be entitled to them.

@Stevo_the_gamer: I would prefer a compassionate and enlightened society. We could have more good jobs in a less cutthroat and selfish world. At least I think so. And people would earn those jobs. You just have to allow for it by having enough of them exist in the first place.

I don't even bother to argue with the right wing platitudes and banalities anymore. Life is too short for shit.

Ah yes, the good feels society where we all have our safe spaces free from pain where all can readily apply for any job, regardless of qualifications, and earn thus. Indeed, a society where we all live in such harmony and bliss that selfish evil "corporate entities" are dissolv- hmm, mandated/controlled by governmental actors who, by their own moral sword/dexterity, give such freely to the people who they can live in everlasting compassion driven and enlightened communities. Enlightened, yes, we can all earn our Ph.D in our favorite narrative of Liberal Arts, free from debt and despair.

Driven by ideology leads to division/impracticality; much like theocracy leads to persecution.

You have 27,000 posts on a video game website. Time is relative.

The argument is focusing in on the individual, which I guess is understandable given that that's largely what Sanders tends to focus on. However, even outside of a claimed moral imperative there's a mathematical/economic one as well that seems to go ignored too often.

Look at the disparity figures. This is simply unsustainable.

The egalitarian mindset is what this country is founded on, at least in terms of rights.

In order to see the fulfillment of that promise the underemployed should probably have a right to health that is as great as yours, they should probably have a right to educational opportunity that is as great as yours, and they should probably have a right to justice that is as great as yours.

Part of that necessitates a sustainable wage for a full time worker that can support an average size family.

What's more, the American worker has earned these rights not given. They earned them by increasing their productivity by 100% since the start of the 70s, without seeing a corresponding increase in their standard of living. Prior to that productivity gains almost always yielded a corresponding rise in wages and standards. Their share of the profits from that increase went somewhere, I believe record corporate profits, CEO and executive compensation (the ones who decide how much goes to whom) that has increased hundreds of percentage points over the same period explain most of it. Globalization is only a small piece of the puzzle, yet we are told its everything. We are told China took that wealth, they didn't. We are told Mexico took that wealth, they didn't. We are told wages can't go up because we wouldn't be competitive, yet we are paid less per hour than many competitors, we simply work more hours than Europeans and thus have a higher gdp per capita.