The Stubborn and Selfish "Old School" Politicians

It's become very obvious that the American people are starving for real change, and have become very angry for being forced to having to always vote for the same old stale and tired politicians who are constantly being recycled. Every day these same politicians have their pontificating faces on TV — giving the voters no choice but to always vote for (what they perceive is) the "lesser of two evils" in our political duopoly system of government, just because the Old Guard as been stubbornly and selfishly clinging to their power, despite the outrage they know the American people are feeling.

The Greatest Generation had left the Baby Boomers a future to believe in. Now the Boomers should allow the younger generation to have a voice in their own future. Whether it's someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, eventually there IS going to be change — when the old guard finally fades away and the next generation of "hope and change" finally takes control of this country's destiny.

Many of these politicos are just like some professional athletes, who refuse to retire at the top of their game, and desperately continue to hold on to their glory days because of their narcissistic and selfish refusal to ever let go — until they finally end up being expelled from the game in disgrace, with only a shred of dignity left. They can be really pathetic sometimes, just like our politicians.

On the "progressive" Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is appealing to younger voters with an inspirational message for their future. But the establishment "moderate" Democrats have been stubbornly resisting all his proposals, calling them un-doable and "pie in the sky" ideas. In this way, Hillary Clinton is dramatically different from Bernie Sanders, Harry Truman, FDR, LBJ and JFK. Clinton offers no bold ideas or new solutions, just "more of the same" — or she will only promote small and incremental changes.

Bernie offers younger Democratic voters a chance to have a voice in their own futures. But the pessimistic establishment Democrats have been desperately attempting to rain on Bernie's parade — trying to kill the optimism and dream he has for our country, as though any new or bold idea is impossible. If Hillary were president in 1962, we never would have went to the moon, because that's not "pragmatic".

The pro-corporate/Wall Street Republicans have been insulting each other and competing to see who can cut taxes the most, while also cutting government programs like Social Security — and while (ironically) promoting new programs and military operations without saying where the revenues will come from.

The pro-corporate/Wall Street Democrats, on the other hand, have resorted to dirty tricks and lies to cling to their power:

• David Brock, who runs a SuperPac to promote and defend Hillary Clinton, claimed Bernie Sanders was acting as if “black lives don’t matter” in a campaign ad.
• Chelsea Clinton accused Bernie of wanting to “dismantle Obamacare" and giving it over to the States like Medicaid.
• Foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan warned that Bernie’s proposals for tackling Isis would put Israel at risk.
• Howard Dean accused Bernie of attacking Clinton's integrity by mentioning her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
• Hillary falsely inferred Bernie was sexist because he said we shouldn't be "shouting" about gun violence.
• Hillary is always playing the "gender card", trying to paint those who disagree with her as "misogynists".
• Many of Clinton's female supporters (usually older women) want Hillary as President, but ONLY BECAUSE she is a woman (which doesn't say much for feminism.)
• On the Bill Maher show, the feminist activist Gloria Steinem suggested that young women support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton because "they want to meet boys". Juana Summers (Mashable’s political editor) strongly resented Steinem's sexist remarks, and wrote:

"To suggest, as Steinem seemed to do, that young women choose their candidate to attract men is profoundly sexist and condescending. It trivializes the voting preferences of a powerful group of voters: young voters — and particularly young women — while at the same time ignoring gay women. Steinem's observation also ignores the legitimate gains that Sanders has made among young people. We saw that clearly in Iowa where Sanders defeated Clinton among voters ages 17 to 29 by 70%. That's almost double the margin by which Barack Obama won that age group in Iowa in 2008."

• And then there's "The Red Scare". Clinton’s surrogates (such as Senators Claire McCaskill and Jeanne Shaheen, as but two examples) have implied Bernie has deep-seated communist sympathies — even though they know very well that there's about as much difference between a Socialist and a democratic socialist (or a social Democrat) as there is between Joe Stalin and FDR (a progressive Democrat). Which means, Hillary's supporters fully agree with the Republicans when accusing Bernie Sanders of being a Socialist, and they stoop to the same level by using the same dirty GOP tactics.
• Economics and Wall Street: The famous economist Paul Krugman (who I used to admire) went bizarro berserk on Bernie in several desperate-sounding posts, and claimed Hillary's plans for reforming Wall Street were much better than Bernie's — even though 170 other economists support Bernie's plan. Last June Senator Bernie Sanders said he would bring progressive economists like Nobel Prize winning Joseph Stiglitz of the Roosevelt Institute and former secretary of Labor (under Bill Clinton) Robert Reich into his administration — all well-known commie-pinkos" (sarcasm). Robert Reich recently said: "HRC is the most qualified to head the political system we have. Bernie is the most qualified to create the political system we SHOULD have."

Every indication shows that most younger Democrats want Bernie Sanders and his bold ideas for their future — and by overwhelming margins. But many of the older Democratic politicians want to keep the status quo just to benefit themselves. After all, Bernie would raise their taxes by lifting the $118,500 cap on Social Security — meaning, Bernie is willing to raise his OWN taxes for what he believes in, which is a future that younger generations can believe in.

Of course, the same thing can be said about all the misguided young people who would vote for a Republican too — because ALL Republicans would cut their Social Security; whereas, Bernie Sanders wants to expand Social Security so that they can have more to live on when they can finally retire. [Trust me, it comes much sooner than you think.] Older Democratic and Republican politicians already have their "goodies" locked in (Social Security and government pensions), so they aren't very worried, because they already got theirs.

Now younger people wants the same American Dream that the Boomers had access to — but the stubborn and selfish old school politicians want to screw our young people. Younger Democrats don't want Hillary Clinton, they'd rather have Bernie Sanders, because Hillary would only screw them a little less than every Republican would.

According to a new post at the Guardian: 

In the U.S., deaths from poisonings by drugs or alcohol have risen dramatically to push lung cancer into second place as the major killer — with a sharp increase in suicides now a close third. Montana has the highest rate of suicide in the U.S. — at nearly twice the national average and rising. Those most likely to kill themselves are 45 to 65 years old (and are mostly middle-aged white people). Probably the biggest reason is socio-economic: access to healthcare, poverty, stagnant wages and the rising cost of living and inflation. A lot of people, once they hit 45 or 50, they don’t see retirement as a bonus. They see something that they’re going to have struggle with for the rest of their lives.

* NOTE: Among other things, Bernie Sanders wants Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and expanding Social Security.

'