By free he means their vote should count more than corporate hand outs. If you read his policies instead of digging all over the internet to find more communism accusations you'd know that. By economic democracy he's also addressing income inequality, which has been an issue for decades. If you look at any human development index lower income inequality is always regarded as a sign of economic prosperity, not the other way around. His politics are directly correlated to his economic policies, this is true of every politician, here or otherwise. Not sure what that is supposed to prove about him. You don't have to agree with what he stands for, but repeating this Marxist shit over and over really makes you look ignorant. There's many legit criticisms of his economics, I've listed a few myself throughout the thread. Many policy decisions as well are a trade off, you get better in one area while losing out in another. Kind of like guns or alcohol and the whole freedom vs public safety issue. If you are interested in a nuanced view and an actual understanding of social welfare economics I would strongly recommend broadening you view and taking a detour from the www.imalreadyright.com websites.
I don't think she would take Sanders as vp. I don't think he'd want it. As much as his campaign was about his revolution, and not about himself, I think his ego would be too big to take second seat. Plus, he's old as shit. I also don't think an indictment will come from this. I'm cynical enough to believe that an administration that supports her would do everything possible to suppress any criminal action against her. I won't be happy until she gets perp walked.
It would be a good choice to shore up a somewhat fracturing democratic base, but their agendas are too different. Hillary is one of the least popular nominees ever, but so is Donald Trump. The polarization of this country is seeping into the party bases themselves, but the democrats are still much more unified, which is why Hillary will almost certainly go with a more establishment VP. My guess is she'll pick someone slightly conservative to win over moderate independents. I think that's actually a bad strategy, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders fared better in a national election against all Republican candidates, but that's likely what she'll do.
I am curious how many sanders voters are "swing" voters and would vote for Trump. If that number turned out to be significant, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sanders as VP.
I heard on the news that a poll said as many as 20%. But that could also be emotionally driven given the timing. I think a lot more people will go to Clinton after they think about it a little more. Vindictively voting for Trump, while funny, is not a good move.
Why would she possibly pick him as a running mate? She's going to get the majority of his voters already, and he won't help her win any battleground states. There are a number of picks that would actually help her pick up some voters. And, apart from the campaign for votes, he also offers no help to her as an advisor or governance support.
The perfect running mate for Hillary is a younger male governor from a swing state. Looking at the current people in office, Jay Nixon of Missouri and Steve Bullock of Montana seem the most likely. Montana is not really a swing state and there aren't enough electoral votes there to make much difference, but every little bit may help this year. I think it will be a tight race, and I expect to see shenanigans like in 2000.
It's kind of funny how many people are just handing it to Hillary. These are the same people who said Trump and Sanders were both going to drop out months ago. The Trump/Clinton race is way tighter at the moment than the polls suggested for either of the primary scenarios at the time. Her lead isn't even outside the most optimistic error margin right now, and people really, really fucking hate Hillary. If Trump rolls out a platform that isn't totally insane and actually sticks to it he could easily pull it off. If his staff is half as smart as he thinks they are they'll start digging up the dirt on Hillary. The e-mails and Libya stuff is fine and all, but start talking about the scandals people don't know about. There's enough to fill a catalog. If he runs his campaign intelligently he can put her in a situation where she's going to be totally discredited by not responding, and if she does choose to respond her answers are either going to be totally unacceptable, or she's going to have to indict herself.
I think he should totally play the woman card on her. Bring up Bill's numerous affairs and rape allegations and how she reacted to them by attacking and destroying the women and sticking with Bill.
It will be really interesting seeing how it is when it gets really dirty. I'm not sure where Trump's line is, but I don't think he's crossed it. It's probably gonna put Bill in a grave.
That would be fucking genius actually. I don't want her to win so I hope she doesn't do it, but that's an almost perfect choice. The only thing missing is he's not from a swing state. That being said my guess is she picks someone higher profile.
Well if we're going with SNL folks...I would love to see her pick Jesse Jackson so he could reprise this SNL role in a debate with Trump: http://www.maniacworld.com/question-is-moot.html
The guy who is attempting to fix urban violent crime problems by increasing section 8 vouchers so the people can move to the suburbs? Everywhere this has been attempted, it's failed miserably. Violent crime in the suburbs goes through the roof. http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/ The GOP would jump all over this if Castro is her choice. I think even the most liberal person in this country fathoms that throwing money at urban crime isn't working after 50 years and $21 trillion or so and things are actually worse then they were.