He does give voice to viewpoints that are not mostly voiced in your political system that is populated mostly by paid representatives of big oil, military contractors, Zionist bankers and other corporate parasites. Perhaps you prefer the oligarchy to a functional representative democracy? That his views are not a majority viewpoint most of the time is simply evidence that democracy still operates to some degree in your country. Not a lot but more than nothing.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that our political system is "populated mostly by corporate parasites." Our political system is populated mostly by voters.
Here's an experiment for you: try electing in your country someone with no political background who was lampooned by everyone in power and both sides of the media throughout the election process. And then do it again.
I wrote- 'Your political system that is populated mostly by paid representatives of big oil, military contractors, Zionist bankers and other corporate parasites.'
ie - Nearly all your 'elected representatives' are paid and owned by corporates. Voters can choose from two parties- both owned by the same corporate parasites with very little real difference in the ultimate outcome. Yours is a corrupted and highly compromised democracy...and you cannot even see it because it has become so 'normalised'...Tragic.
Sanders is one of the very few exceptions- who speaks outside of a corporate captured narrative.
Please do not misrepresent what I wrote. That is exactly the sort of behavour which degrades both those who practice it, and our democracies.
I didn't misrepresent what you wrote. You said that the political system is mostly the elected representatives, when in reality it's mostly the voters.
Voters in America can choose from several parties. If they don't want one of those parties, they also have the option of writing in someone else's name.
Are you trying to say I'm not in control of my choice when I vote? Or are you trying to say my vote won't matter if I don't vote within the two prevailing parties?
I am saying the only voting options you have are mostly owned by parasitic corporate sponsors.
Bernie Sanders appears to be one of the very few options where voters in a US few states have an option to vote for someone not owned by corporate parasites.
The US political system is almost entirely stitched up by corporate patronage parasites.
Yes if you vote for other than the two main parties that vote is absolutely very unlikely to gain any meaningful representation in the US political system.
It is a protest vote at best but does not impact the corporate sponsored crony is and corruption that is now so deeply entrenched.
For example Trump is owned by Chevron and Zionists, among others...
Here is some documentary evidence for you to consider...
Bernie Sanders appears to be one of the very few options where voters in a US few states have an option to vote for someone not owned by corporate parasites.
So you prefer a government parasite over a corporate "parasite".Even though corporations produce things and pay workers, while the government takes from workers and produces nothing but strife in return.
Its not a question of my preferences- it is a matter of the very limited options available to US voters. Chevron/Big Oil are profiteering from US consumers and Trump will do nothing to stop that because he is owned by Chevron. Trumps war crimes in the middle east benefit his corporate sponsors, not US voters.
Goldman Sachs/bankers/Zionists, military contractors, and Chevron/Big Oil own both main parties in the USA. I get this read reading the news and history.
In New Zealand we have elected representatives who are not owned by corporate patrons and they frequently though not always form our government. Could probably include Bernie Sanders in that category regarding the US, but he is perhaps almost the only one who is not owned by corporate sponsor parasites.
Truly tragic how accepting you are of the patronage and cronyism so apparent today in the US political system.
Naming two post offices is peak Bernie, the man literally delivers nothing but mail.
He does give voice to viewpoints that are not mostly voiced in your political system that is populated mostly by paid representatives of big oil, military contractors, Zionist bankers and other corporate parasites.
Perhaps you prefer the oligarchy to a functional representative democracy?
That his views are not a majority viewpoint most of the time is simply evidence that democracy still operates to some degree in your country.
Not a lot but more than nothing.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that our political system is "populated mostly by corporate parasites." Our political system is populated mostly by voters.
Here's an experiment for you: try electing in your country someone with no political background who was lampooned by everyone in power and both sides of the media throughout the election process. And then do it again.
I wrote-
'Your political system that is populated mostly by paid representatives of big oil, military contractors, Zionist bankers and other corporate parasites.'
ie - Nearly all your 'elected representatives' are paid and owned by corporates.
Voters can choose from two parties- both owned by the same corporate parasites with very little real difference in the ultimate outcome.
Yours is a corrupted and highly compromised democracy...and you cannot even see it because it has become so 'normalised'...Tragic.
Sanders is one of the very few exceptions- who speaks outside of a corporate captured narrative.
Please do not misrepresent what I wrote.
That is exactly the sort of behavour which degrades both those who practice it, and our democracies.
I didn't misrepresent what you wrote. You said that the political system is mostly the elected representatives, when in reality it's mostly the voters.
Voters in America can choose from several parties. If they don't want one of those parties, they also have the option of writing in someone else's name.
Are you trying to say I'm not in control of my choice when I vote? Or are you trying to say my vote won't matter if I don't vote within the two prevailing parties?
I am saying the only voting options you have are mostly owned by parasitic corporate sponsors.
Bernie Sanders appears to be one of the very few options where voters in a US few states have an option to vote for someone not owned by corporate parasites.
The US political system is almost entirely stitched up by corporate patronage parasites.
Yes if you vote for other than the two main parties that vote is absolutely very unlikely to gain any meaningful representation in the US political system.
It is a protest vote at best but does not impact the corporate sponsored crony is and corruption that is now so deeply entrenched.
For example Trump is owned by Chevron and Zionists, among others...
Here is some documentary evidence for you to consider...
So you prefer a government parasite over a corporate "parasite".Even though corporations produce things and pay workers, while the government takes from workers and produces nothing but strife in return.
Its not a question of my preferences- it is a matter of the very limited options available to US voters.
Chevron/Big Oil are profiteering from US consumers and Trump will do nothing to stop that because he is owned by Chevron.
Trumps war crimes in the middle east benefit his corporate sponsors, not US voters.
Goldman Sachs/bankers/Zionists, military contractors, and Chevron/Big Oil own both main parties in the USA.
I get this read reading the news and history.
In New Zealand we have elected representatives who are not owned by corporate patrons and they frequently though not always form our government.
Could probably include Bernie Sanders in that category regarding the US, but he is perhaps almost the only one who is not owned by corporate sponsor parasites.
Truly tragic how accepting you are of the patronage and cronyism so apparent today in the US political system.