Not everyone has the same reality. Sanders isn't saying anything he hasn't been saying for a long time. Dreaming of a better country for everyone is the kind of dreamer I can support.

"Necessary actions"? Oh dear! Well, for this Neocon and his fellows, here's an article they will like. Or maybe not.
Trump leaving neocons in dust | TheHill

Actually, to be fair, those who live and vote in the US will naturally have a different viewpoint from those of us who don't. We non-residents and non-voters tend to worry about the effect on all those non-American villagers and hospital patients killed by the US's "necessary" bombs and drones. Human-rights wimps, is what we are, I guess.

Peace out.

I agree entirely. The problem here is that as President Sanders would be up against a Republican dominated Congress. If Obama couldn't make any headway with them what chance has Sanders got ? We have to face reality. Only in America could a party like the Republicans exist for so long. They are a weird, fossilized entity who have consistently opposed any programs to benefit the ordinary working person. They've hardly changed since Herbert Hoover's day. Like it or not we're stuck with them until the day comes when the voters wake up and send them packing

So to paraphrase you: "this political party that half of America votes for on a regular basis is weird and shouldn't exist as I disagree with it"

Why did you come to America out of interest?

Thanks chap - life came by & threw me a curve ball, or some such euphemism. Had a few challenging years there, but the worst is behind us, for the moment. Hope all well with you & yours!

You really do have a tin ear, don't you. Why don't you try responding to other poster's positions and arguments, rather than continually questioning why they live in America? You know, since a goodly number of us were living in America before you were born, are U.S. Citizens, knew there were such things as alligators back in the 1960s etc. etc.

ER... Last July - in the UK - was WAAAYYY cheaper than locally.

I get that it's a matter of opinion. And here's my thinking.

Trump & other GOP candidates have got a whole range of pretty extreme views they have espoused, whether they believe them or not - but they've said them, I guess to garner support from the right wing of their base.

So where has the press been in challenging the candidates on these points? Where has the press been in holding candidates to account, to challenging GOP execs & leadership? Where has the press been on calling out lies and BS?

For me, evidence of the existence of a liberal press would be a pretty heavy, regular dose of trashing (by simple, reasoned argument alone) the huge pile of dung that has been consistently dealt by the GOP candidates. This for me is less about political positions as it is about pure BS, because there has been a pile of that from the Dems on occassion too.

If we truly had a liberal press, Trump would have been made to look like the lying bull shitter that he likely is, a long time ago, instead of never.

Ah, a roll call of shite journalists & media execs who are providing campaign contributions in the form of free & easy air time.
I don't see much 'liberal' there - but I do see a whole lot of people bought & paid for by the same people who have bought & paid for much of the GOP.

So, where is the liberal media then?

That's quite a paraphrase - using your own words to say something that somebody didn't say, but you claim they did say... Interesting. You should work for a political campaign! Or as a 'journalist'!

Certainly is odd. A few obvious ways to move forward;

- Take money out of elections
- Make redistricting and election management a federal, non-partisan function
- Get the underclass edumacated
- End the charitable status of religious institutions

Not saying any of those are likely

It's true, but it won't be any better for Clinton. Republicans hate the Clintons so much Hillary won't be able to get a post office named if they still have a majority.

But you're wrong on one aspect, Republicans have changed, they've moved further and further to the right, Nixon could have got healthcare done if it wasn't for Watergate, and Reagan had an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

That's categorically not the case here. It's more of a case of "this political party, which as recently as the 1960s was a moderate, mildly conservative entity with broadly sensible policies, has been turned upside down by fear and ripped apart by extremists, and really needs to get back to being the organization that produced presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower."

If, as you say, half of America (or more correctly, about 49% of the 54% of the electorate who shows up to vote at the general election) does not want the Democrats in power, then wouldn't it be better for the GOP to ditch the extremists, and get back to being a viable opposition that won't screw over the working people of America if they do win a Presidential election, or control Congress? More importantly, one that would be willing to work with a Democrat president for the good of the US as a whole (that goes both ways for Democrats being willing to work with Republican presidents of course)?

Glad to hear you're doing well now. We're getting on fine ourselves.

There's a couple of aspects to this:

1) Trump has been fantastic for ratings (read profits) for the news networks, so they've been constantly reporting on everything he says and does. Trump knows this and is constant available for interviews. If any of the networks get negative, then he can threaten to cut access, see the Megyn Kelly thing a few months ago.

2) The news shows try to give the appearance of being objective and telling both sides of the story, so when Trump makes shit up about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, they won't call out this as bullshit. This also relates to 1)

3) Everything out of Trump's mouth is a lie, so there just aren't the resources available to fact check everything.

As for the liberal media, you can find it on the Internet.

There was a time during Ronald Reagans administration when Reagan sat down with Democrat majority leader Tip O'Neill and between them they reached agreement on a number of things that needed to be addressed.

Do you think that this would be possible today ? As others on the thread have already stated the GOP has moved far to the right since Reagan's time. It's now become the Party of "No"

Why I came to America is irrelevant mate.

Was it the same reason I came here - to steal a woman and take a job ... ?