Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Morning Joe To Bernie: Dems Need To Move Right To Win!" video.

Trump is not racist, sexist or xenophobic. Trump won because he connected with the common man and worker that has become irritated with democrats whose policies do not work at the federal level. The democrats, at this point are extreme and need to find a way to become more moderate. This last election their only attack on Trump was to call him a bigot in some way. They can't run on their policies. Not even Bernie Sanders.
3
Joe is not wrong, democrats are becoming more radical which is why they lost. They are no longer in touch with the average person and worker. Sad part is now some of the people are doubling down on their failing policies.....I am looking at you Justice Democrats. BTW, Vermont is not conservative.
2
" the reich wing" Now you see why you lost the election.
2
"What specific policy issues do you think the JD's are missing?" It is more of what policies they support. Here is the major thing. They are against a corrupt federal government. Meanwhile they support policies that gives that same federal government more power. Look at them right now. They thought Warren was the savior until she immediately endorsed Clinton. They thought Obama was the one until his presidency. They feel Bernie is the one but has he ever endorsed JD? And he bought a third house while endorsing Clinton. JD has this delusion that the next politician they elect will serve them and not some big donor. There are some out there, but they are few and far between. To me Justice Democrats are like the person going from one abusive relationship to the next constantly saying that next person is "the one". If JD were to someone get some of their members in office most of them will become corrupt in no time. Just watch.
2
Andrew, to add one more thing, look at OWS. The second it got cold they went home and never came back. Same thing will happen with JD, instead in this time when the money comes in they will act differently.
2
Andrew, Justice Democrats are economic illiterates and border line communists. People won't support that. Also, it will be like OWS, the people involved will be disorganized, inexperienced and can't form an argument. They are dead upon arrival.
1
FDR turned a recession into a depression.
1
"Except the depression happened before he was in office" The recession happened before he was in office. FDR hindered recovery. Before Reagan took over there was a recession and under him recovery happened. That is why I said FDR turned a recession into a depression. A recession was already taking place, FDR prolonged the recovery. Thanks for proving you can't read.
1
"And that's why FDR was elected four times, right? " Doesn't matter. He was elected to fix the economy because we were under a recession. Now he did, the war did that, but people were mad at Hoover and saw FDR as a savior and was willing to work with him. The same was with Obama. He came in during a recession so people were willing to stick with him despite things not being better. Also, unless things fall apart under them as president the incumbent has the inside edge. Since 1901 we are on our 21st president. So far only 7 did not serve two terms. Two were because they died and Nixon resigned. So four failed to seek re-election. Carter and Hoover saw the economy crash under them leading to their loss. "Let's just ignore the New Deal policies that increased GDP year after year until FDR foolishly tried to balance the budget." What increased GDP was the fact that after the war every other country was rebuilding and the US wasn't. So we had an economic edge. Now if you are talking about during the 30s what happened was that he artificially improved the economy with massive spending, but since it was artificial it quickly came crashing down. It was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the federal government with spending and we saw the results. The second time was under Obama. This time the private sector was not as foolish which led to stagnate growth. " Let's ignore the massive World War II spending that actually got us fully out of the depression. " That was an actual investment as people demanded our services.
1
"I'm quite curious; how would you want your country to be governed? I mean what policies do you want? " I would want to follow the constitution. With the constitution you have limited federal government and more state rights. There is a desire to have government, but you need to keep it as local as possible to ensure that it serves the people and remains the servants. You, at a local community, can see if government is working for you and if government is spending money in a way you seem fit. When you look at the structure of the Constitution it is laid out like this. The states make up the country and thus the states run the country. The federal government, which is made up of the states, serves the states where each state sends representation. If you look at the federal government with the exception of the draft and treason, both of which relate to foreign affairs, the federal government has basically no control over the citizens and only over the states. The states were taxed, not the citizens or corporations. At the state level the people make up the states. The states, which is made up of the people, serves the people. So the states can tax individuals and corporations. The states run education, healthcare if needed, creates business regulations, run the fire department and police and so on. In the Constitution it places restrictions on all governments, so you can't have a state religion and everyone has the same rights. So within the bounds of the constitution you can have, at your state and local level, a high min. wage, single payer healthcare, high taxes on businesses and so on. So whose side is extreme? My side that allows you to do what you want within the confines of the constitution and your state. Or your side that forces what you feel is right down everyone's throat? And if the majority of people really supported what you support, than they will do it at their state and local level.
1
What makes the democrats extreme is how they want to force their policies at the federal level. I am not saying their policies are bad, but at the federal level they are. Same with republicans. Republicans have been pushing for state rights for years (with the exception of gay marriage which I disagreed with). When Obamacare was being pushed and was compared to Romneycare people said Romneycare is a state law which is the difference. Republicans want state rights, especially Trump. Democrats have become extreme.
1
And I don't agree with it. Plus, I doubt he will do it.
1
Bernie is pushing for job killing policies (the min. wage, higher taxes, his healthcare and college payment policy) that will lead to more government jobs. His policies will hinder economic growth and promote laziness to the point where the government will have to force people to work in order to produce anything. That is communist. Justice Democrats are not rational. They feel they can give one entity, the federal government in this case, massive powers and not expect it to become corrupt. They also expect people to just work out of the kindness of their heart which is also not the case.
1
I am against JD because they are irrational and go purely off of emotions. There is a reason why that group will fall apart and be lucky to get one person in office.
1
Fredrik, other countries do not do what Bernie is pushing for.
1
Daniel, my main problem with JD is that they want to give the federal government more power, but somehow feel they can end corruption. They keep saying "well this politician is the one who won't be corrupt". I heard that from the left about Obama, Warren and Sanders. Sanders is the one who does not take corporate donations, I will give him that. But in the end he endorsed Clinton and he bought a third home. And has he ever endorsed JD yet? The fact is that he does not care about you. All he cares about is himself. You keep pushing the idea that you can give government all this power and someday the right politicians will come along and fill the offices. What has Warren done? What has Sanders done? As I said, Sanders owns three homes, he is well off. He has not endorsed JD. To me JD are like people going from one abusive relationship to the next that keep saying "this person is the one". And after they get abused, they get mad, and then leave for another abusive relationship feeling like they are not at fault. The reality is they are for picking the one partner just like JD will be at fault for giving more powers to the federal government feeling that will end corruption.
1
Daniel, I can break down the idiocy of the economic policies of JD later if you want, but my main problem is listed in my most recent comment to you. Tell me, why hasn't Bernie endorsed JD? And why does he own three homes?
1
"every single Congressman owns at least two homes" Depends. Paul Ryan does but that is because they are rentals. He sleeps in a cot in his DC office. "Bernie got his third house from inheritance." And he could have donated it or sold it and donated the money. This is a guy who wants to raise the inheritance tax. "Your petty attempts at character assassination are even more asinine and infantile than your idiotic economic policies" Why does he need three homes? Why does he deserve to get richer while millions and millions continue to struggle? Why is he allowed to buy more homes while telling business owners they can't expand and hire more employees? And why hasn't Bernie endorsed JD?
1
No they don't. They all do something different. For example, many do not have a min. wage.
1
Sean, why can't Bernie sleep in a cot in his office? My point on Bernie and his three homes is that he ran a campaign on the idea that the rich are getting richer and there is massive wealth inequality (according to him) but than he buys a third home. He also ran a campaign on how he will spend other people's money but apparently he can spend his the way he wants. "he's the poorest member of Congress," Well congrats, but one, he still owns three homes. And two, why do you cheer on failure? "ONCE AGAIN, he inherited the third home, and even if he didn't, are politicians not allowed to buy homes?" Are rich people not allowed to be taxed at the same rate and be allowed to keep their money? Why does Bernie want to tax the rich more? They earned that money.
1
" Some do. Others have very strong unions. America has neither. My point still stands. Bernies policies would not crash the us economy because of it." He policies would have destroyed the economy. A $15/hr min. wage will have led to many jobs being lost.
1
" all those countries have tuition free college and universal healthcare," They ration their healthcare and not everyone is allowed to go to college. Also, you are ignoring other things they do. For example, Norway funds their programs with oil and Bernie supporters are crying about fracking.
1
" why can't you tell the difference between buying a home and inheriting one?' I know the difference. But why does he get to keep that money? Why doesn't he donate it? He complains about others having all this money and wealth. Meanwhile he owns three homes where millions don't even own one. What has Bernie done? He never created jobs. He never invested money to create wealth. He runs his mouth about wealth and income inequality but then buys a third home. "wealth inequality has increased, and it's not because of guys like Bernie" But Bernie is playing his part in increasing it. " especially since you complain about issues caused by the very same economic policies you support." Nope, my economic policies mean more wealth for all. " citation needed. I'll be waiting. " Trump is doing the exact opposite of Bernie and the economy is growing. "you think everyone in America is allowed to attend college? lmfao, you utter buffoon. rationing healthcare lowers costs. " So you support lower quality healthcare where more people die?
1