clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 33

This Biden talk is creeping me out also.

ErikJ972 said: "Never mind that multiple American intelligence estimates have concluded that Iran suspended its quest for a nuclear weapon long ago"

Suspended?!? That's just not true. Silly even.

Even the Obama administration acknowledges that the nuclear facility buried in the mountains at Fordow, outside of the holy city of Qom, was built to create weapons.

Everyone knows that if you want to produce energy, it doesn't matter where you build a nuclear plant. If you want to build weapons,you hide the plant. Fordow was chosen so

The whole reason for the agreement is to limit weapons production.

Here's the 411 on Fordow:

NTI.org: Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant

War makes her corporate masters rich!

Actually, I don't think Hillary Clinton calls any man her "master."

^ Brilliant.

The Bernie campaign says they're ahead in Iowa, the momentum in this campaign seems unstoppable.

There's one camp, another camp, and the out liar.

Why South Florida, because I stated I don't think Bernie will withstand close scrutiny of his record or his life? Because I don't see him as being suitable to run the country? That makes me a dickhead? I even said the support of him was admirable cause I really feel his supporters truly believe in him.

Well, I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. If you want to take this discussion to a 10 year old's level, baby I'm ready.

I'm not implying he has done horrible things but I think it is very easy to demonize big business and banks and taking certain actions to maintain our interests overseas. It's very easy to vote against everything so you don't ever run the risk of supporting something that may not work out as planned. I think his ideologies sound good on paper but are not for the most part realistic in a world getting more complicated by the day where international interdependencies make doing anything complicated but doing nothing far too risky. Are labor jobs decreasing because they are being exported as people like Bernie would have you believe or because technology is changing the way most things are manufactured decreasing the need for manual labor and the job growth is in the service sector and technology, not heavy manufacturing. The unemployment level is 5.1%, lowest level in 7.5 years. How is that possible if all these workers are jobless.

I could speak to the other points you raised but suffice to say as every American President has found out, it's a helluva lot easier identifying the problems than it is crafting workable solutions to fix them. If he speaks to you, by all means vote for him. I don't find him to be a viable candidate. If that makes me a dickhead, as the great philosopher Roxy says, somehow I will survive.

I

South Florida said: "The Bernie campaign says they're ahead in Iowa, the momentum in this campaign seems unstoppable"

"Unstoppable" only to people with no understanding of politics.

There are four primaries in February before "Super Tuesday" on March 1st, when there are thirteen primaries.

Of the four February primaries, Bernie has the fan base to take only two because his fan base is shockingly and overwhelmingly WHITE and MALE with very little minority or women voters. He will take the Iowa caucus on 2/1 and New Hampshire primary on 2/9.

Hillary's campaign will be pronounced DOA (yet again), but that will be the end of #feelthebern.

The next primary is in South Carolina (on 2/20), followed by the Nevada caucus on 2/23. Hillary is ahead in both those states by over 30 points: In Nevada, she is ahead 55% to 18% for Bernie, and in South Carolina, she is ahead 54% to 24% (for Biden!) to 9% for Bernie.

And then comes Super Tuesday, March 1st: Thirteen primaries and caucuses, all on the same day. In the ones for which there is polling data, Hillary is ahead by landslide levels: Alabama (78%-10%), Alaska (Hillary), Arkansas (Hillary was first lady!), Colorado (Bernie could take), Georgia (Hillary 51%-24%), Massachusetts (Bernie could take), Minnesota (Hillary), North Carolina (Hillary), Oklahoma (Hillary), Tennessee (Hillary), Texas (Hillary), Vermont (Bernie could take), and Virginia (Hillary).

After Super Tuesday, the media will react with a slew of (predictable) "What Happened?!?" articles and pundits declaring Hillary a "Comeback Kid" like her husband was in 1992.

But the truth of the matter is, everyone knows it now.

Updated On: 9/10/15 at 11:13 PM

Here's one of my favorite clips of Bernie Sanders being "crazy". Advocating for gay military members on the floor of the house in 1995. When Clinton was supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA.

The unemployment level is 5.1%, lowest level in 7.5 years. How is that possible if all these workers are jobless.

The unemployment level that the BLS publishes, which is based on a basic U-3 rate, is not accurate. The real unemployment level (U-6 rate; using unemployed, underemployed and discouraged) is at around 10.3%. It has definitely gone down -- as can be proven with this chart from August on CNBC.com -- but it is not as low as the BLS would like you to believe. The U-6 rate is a more accurate and authentic way of tracking unemployment which, by the way, the BLS also tracks and provides but chooses not to publicize or use as its primary 'barometer.'

But since THEY ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME the unemployment rate would be exactly the same if Romney had won.

I am forgoing a "Like" graphic here because I agree with you completely. 100%. You'll get no argument or disagreement from me. Romney was in the pocket of just as many bankers, lobbyists and cronies as Clinton is and Bush was (and is) and Obama is. Until we can get someone who is truly independent and cannot be corrupted under the rule of greed and money, the country will not change. No matter who it is or what party they're part of.

Liza, I am aware of the additional numbers of underemployed and discouraged, however I believe the importance of factoring them in especially for discouraged starts to decrease when unemployment levels are at 7 year lows. When unemployment levels are very high, I can see many workers being discouraged and giving up their job search but when levels are half of what they were and there are definitely jobs out there, at what point do we stop counting someone who chooses not to even bother looking for a job as discouraged and start treating them as someone who just doesn't want to work anymore and factor them out of the data?