Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Corporate Democrat Campaign Commercial Appeals To Nobody" video.

@pepper As far as I can see: all are possible; but instead both parties want to spend on the military ... both want costly wars ($3 Trillion at least for Iraq and Afghanistan wars ... and for what?). No The rich don't want centrally funded health and education because it would cost them more; "free" is being used as a derogatory here by the right, because it's not free (doctors and teachers have to be paid). It would actually work out cheaper and surely a healthy population is desirable for socialists and capitalists too ... anyway you won't be getting that because both parties rely on "donations" ... but these are not charitable donations. The Republicans and Democrats are clearly right wing; I would say Clinton was further to the right (being a hawk) than some Republicans; so the term "left" or "left wing" appears simply to be an attempt to occupy the political landscape by the Democrats and since most of the media seem happy to repeat this, it looks like they are in on the trick. If the Republicans and Democrats offer the choice war or war; then the political system is polarised and the voter gets "Hobson's choice" which is very frustrating (unless you really want war); it also gives rise to extremism (as the only way to stand out from the crowd is to say something controversial ... like why don't the military experience austerity, like the taxpayer does?). It's unhealthy and stifling. A $20 minimum wage ... actually it should be more if wages reflected the continual increase in productivity since the late 1970's; but of course a large rise in state sector wages is usually followed by a rise in prices, but we could hide the wage rise by making health care and education less expensive for all; or train travel ... instead we hide it in weapons (it's a $2 Trillion a year export market improving tin-pot dictators arsenals (and then we go and fight them ...lol). It's just a rich persons club and we aren't in it. Most people, I believe just want to be able to pay the bills; save a bit and get through life ... the piddling problems of multi-millionaires don't concern me; but lack of representation does.
1
@Pepper It seems to me that: Bernie Sanders ran as a progressive Democrat; there isn't enough money in that (Clinton had more funding), she lost basically because Democrats did not turn out to vote in their usual numbers and the Green Party, by subsequently accepting money to call for recounts, when only the Democrats could win damaged their party (by prostituting themselves for money). Up to then I would have viewed the Green Party as an independent left-wing entity (because many of their objectives aren't about money; it's things like the environment; or health and well being or society). I don't see the Republicans wasting a penny on supporting a third party that doesn't support their ideology. This argument that a vote for a third party is a vote for our opposition is weak (and a bit condescending); but as the Greens only command around 2% of the national vote; I think we can rule out Russian mind control (if we hadn't already) or that their share of the vote affects the two party cabal in any meaningful way. If the Greens are left-wing (socialists) then they are completely different from the Clinton Democrats (ideologically). I would agree with you that if the Greens, or Liberals (traditionally centre ground) increased their vote share markedly that they would be offered money by some who want to buy political influence. This is the problem right through the system at the moment; it's become a rich persons club and we aren't in it. One trick the right wingers frequently use is to ask, "but how much will it cost?" ... then the context is money and of course major projects; social restructuring or putting a man on the Moon will cost a lot. We shouldn't allow: the Democrats to call themselves "the left"; allow capitalists to confuse capitalism with technology (remember the Russians led the space race for a decade without capitalism) and multi-millionaire career politicians can only be through corruption (or they aren't doing the job we pay them for, they're focused elsewhere). Too much money in politics; short term thought is in vogue (just as far as the next election and there is a win at all costs approach (that threatens to destroy the system). This might not be your appraisal; some might accept easy money to do another parties bidding; but it is clear that both main parties agree on certain issues, one is hiking the military budget ... as a socialist (a real one) the question would be about "marginal utility" in other words, how could that money be better spent. For $98 Billion I could write "F*ck off Russia" on the Moon (smiley face). As it is I think it's going to be war. There is more to America than two parties ... there had better be! .
1