Politics...eh.

I'm not sure he's so extreme as is; from what I've seen, Europeans as a whole endorse Sanders, and their economy isn't in shambles. That said, if nothing else, Sanders has undeniably been incredibly consistent in his career (participating in equal rights movements since like, 1962, in issues of both race and sexuality) and he speaks ernestly.

Obviously, I'm not unbiased--when I watch interviews of Bernie, he inspires me like no politician I've heard speak. He appears a sterling alternative to the Republican frontrunner, in any case.

I'm also not quite so sure he's an idiot to any degree; in fact, many economists agree that his plan to gradually up the minimum wage to a living wage embodies many American ideals.

There's also the matter of his stability--everyone knows Hillary cried in a political/business setting, yadda yadda, I don't really care. Who's going to remain calm in the face of Putin? Not Trump, nor any Republican for that matter. They can't handle debate moderators, they sure as hell won't be coming close to Putin. EDIT: Not that I really think Russia is a massive threat to the US, but the former commonwealths and the Middle East are in too close a proximity. At least Bernie has a plan for them that isn't war.

That leaves Democratic frontrunners Sanders and Clinton. Sanders has stated time and again that his campaign is built on compassion, not threat of force, and he has, to my knowledge, never voted to engage in any pointless conflict such as the Iraq War (which Hillary voted to engage in, and Bernie opposed). He has said that he views war as the very last option in any negotiation.

All that said, take my opinion with a grain of salt. I won't be able to vote by the time this election rolls through, and odds are I've not yet reached the level of political-historical education to make an objective judgment of the viability of any of the candidates. These are just my thoughts based on what I've seen roll across my dashboard and what I've researched on my own.

Isn't this counterbalanced by the other European countries doing perfectly well (Scandinavia as a whole, Germany, the UK, France, etc.), for a net result of not being in shambles? Besides, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium's economies dipped into the "shambles" zone in large part due to the ripple effect of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which was the US's fault in the first place (with the collapse of the housing bubble).

Last I checked, the Eastern Bloc is a part of the problematic area surrounding Russia that is susceptible to being conquered and/or warred in (such as Ukraine).

Honestly, if minimum wage were adjusted to fit inflation since 1968 (from the $1.60 minimum wage at that time), it'd be about $10.91. www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm See for yourself. If the minimum wage were to be adjusted for both inflation and the increase in productivity, it would be nearer to $21.72: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html

I want you to know that when I say many top economists, I mean many. As in over 200: www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

Even Congress must be able to be swayed by facts (though they've done a fantastic job ignoring empirical evidence for evolution and climate change); the only reason for this blockade tactic by Congress is the Republican majority not giving a flying fuck about the American people. That said, neither does Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders actually gives a shit. The man grew up in the middle class. At least with him in control of the Presidency, there would be someone who doesn't shit on the lower- and middle-class of the US.

These are from the horse's mouth:





I leave those for you to decide for yourself whether they're viable or not. They appear so to me.

Yeah, maybe, but the US isn't Germany, it isn't the UK, and it isn't the Scandanavian countries. You're comparing countries with the populations of one of the US states to the entirety of the US economic and political system. And it also means what you mean by "doing alright". The US economy is still uniformly seen as the most advanced and biggest economy in the world.

Yeah, 10.91 would be fine too. Compensating for the increase in productivity is not an economically sound policy, as the majority of those productivity gains are made by capital investments made by firms.

Cool, but I could get over 200 economists who disagree with the 15 minimum wage just by a cursory google search:
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659741-global-movement-toward-much-higher-minimum-wages-dangerous-reckless-wager?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
www.epionline.org/release/majority-of-labor-economists-believe-minimum-wage-hikes-cause-unemployment/
economicrt.org/publication/effects-of-a-fifteen-dollar-an-hour-minimum-wage-in-the-city-of-los-angeles/
www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/07/15-dollar-minimum-wage-harm-economy-holzer

The fact that a price floor creates an oversupply isn't something you need to be an economist to understand. It's basic supply and demand. 

It's not about Congress being swayed by facts. Wanting to have free state schools isn't a "fact". In fact, a lot of these issues have already passed through Congress, and haven't turned out well. For example, the carried interest tax already attempted to find it's way through Congress. Every Republican voted against it. I'm sorry, but if you actually think 90% of these initiatives would have any hope of passing through Congress (especially a Republican controlled Congress), you're just the gullible kind of voter Bernie Sanders is using to gain momentum.

Trump is playing a character to trick morons into wasting votes and making sure Hillary wins the election.

Super-delegates are largely undemocratic. Same shit happened in New Hampshire iirc, even though Bernie squashed the vote. Thing is, super-delegates essentially switch sides based on who's winning, and they're not there to tip the scales. If Bernie has more pledged delegates (granted, they're not obligated to vote for whom they're elected to vote) the delegates will most likely switch, a lot like in 2008.

All that said, they probably need doing away with. They get a crazy amount of influence nonetheless because the media includes them in delegate counts when they haven't voted. Also, their vote counts for a ridiculous amount of a normal American citizen's vote when they aren't chosen to represent the people; they're appointed by the party.

Propagating the establishment is basically their job.