Although this is a strange question that may not be able to be explained with science and math...

Yeah dude he's a "Democratic Socialist"

>implying there's a difference
"There is, retard"
>Milennial cancer or uneducated retard

that explained nothing economy-wise and you just filled with buzzwords that you didn't understand.

typical berntard

Collective (state) owned means of production.

Universally proven to be inefficient, damaging and authoritarian.

Presidents are middle management, at best. They are told what to 'decide' by their advisors.

what? A true, full socialist system actually involved shared control of the means of production. Bernie's democratic socialism is just taking the existing welfare-state idea further than it already is. There's a difference.

and yet somehow americans spend more than any nation in heath and defense per capita.
Look at how efficient you are kek

The government doesn't dictate the economy, the economy dictates the government. It doesn't matter which puppet sits in the white house because that's not where the decisions are made.

Scientifically (boring):
People would kill to have a accurate model of the economy OP.

Personally:
I think Clinton represents the status quo, which is that corporations are overwhelming the democratic process with money, which ultimately hurts the American public as a whole for the gain of a few. She is the TPP in human form. This weakens the country, and exploits people in other countries.

Trump is whipping up the xenophobic zeitgeist of the country again, not really seen since the Cold War. He's playing on the fears that international economic and social pressures are threatening the country's fabric. He wants "to make America great again". I think this will lead to nationalism and irresponsible foreign policy that will alienate other nations and hurt the United States global economy at a time when China (read in Trump's voice) and some other countries are posed to become the next leaders of the world economy.

Sanders wants to invest in the United States. The infrastructure of the country is failing, social services like education are consistently the first to get funding axed, work is outsourced. Addressing these issues are all terrific opportunities to employ people in the country (think CCC), inject money into our economy at the level where people will spend it, and invest lasting value into the country. Furthermore neither Trump nor Hillary are likely to see Marijuana reform while in office. The success of Colorado is a clear indication that there is significant revenue that states can immediately tap into. People claim that the social programs he is proposing will bankrupt the country, but our disastrous foreign policy over the past 15 years has made he's proposals a drop in the bucket in comparison.

I support Sanders because I want my tax dollars going towards programs I benefit from, rather seeing it dumped into the hands of revolving-door corporations or spent on bombs being dropped on people I don't know that I don't have any problem with.

>that explained nothing economy-wise
It obviously didn't intend to. I just want to talk shit, generally. When people who don't understand anything have a say, politics becomes wolves engineering and corralling the sheep, and often if something is unfamiliar, the sheep are incapable of making the right choice. They've been robbed such that they would reject even their own salvation.

>buzzwords
List these buzzwords.

There's a way to fix any economy or country, but it's never pretty cause of morals. It's a matter of how many people you want to anger. But as president, you can't really do that radically, so you have to take another step. Something a little clever. What that step is, I don't know.

Trump is against interventionism. That's why he wants out of NATO. That's why he wants the Middle East to sort Syria out on their own.

I have a lot of problems with Trump, but the most tangible is that I can look at Clinton's and Sander's voting records and pick the person who I feels represents me. I can't do that with Trump. This is a problem for me because it's clear that Trump's policies are more what gets the crowd riled up at a rally than anything that actually resembles a contingency.

Anyway, I think we can agree we need drastic change in the White House, and that isn't Hillary.

>That's why he wants out of NATO
I think it's part of the irresponsible foreign policy thing.