Bernie Sanders is NOT extreme.

Bernie is not an extremist. He has very good ideas for the country.

 

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

Sanders is definitely way to the left of mainstream America. But be that as it may, I do view him as an honest politician and one who is true to his beliefs. Not someone who says whatever group you are speaking to wants to hear. He is too far left for my likes, I would never vote for him. But he has my respect.

The person he is running against doesn't have my respect. she lacks integrity, honesty, and is the epitome of today's politician who will say anything and do anything just to get elected. I would never vote for her either. Sanders in my opinion is one refreshing guy.

 

I won't disagree in general.

Still... some serious attention should be paid to how America has literally been dragged toward the RIGHT... not necessarily by an organic migration of values, per se.

There has been a concerted effort to created something like 'political gravity', almost an AstroTurf 'persuasion', unwittingly applied as an effect, to MOLD (unnaturally) America's overall political positions. I first noticed something like that happening, when people didn't really so much 'shift' in their political views... as much as I saw the Left being extremely 'vilified' fron the Right.

It had me asking, "What's so bad about Liberalism anyway?" And we truly could ask the same about 'Conservatism' (in a civil discussion) and come to some helpful conclusions.

So, what I'm pointing out is this:

Sanders may be "left" of things as some might suggest... but people VERY often overlook how far to the RIGHT America has been perceived as moving, especially if we consider how FAR to the Right many have been dragged by the concerted effort to place them there.

 

1. He says he's a socialist.

2. They are selling our stock exchanges, so I question their ability to tax stock transactions as planned...although I tend to agree it would be a good way to cut down on the overuse of the exchanges to cream profits out of the economy to the benefit of a few using costly algorithms.

3. I object to being taxed to fund just any student's college career. This should be limited to students that need the financial assistance, have demonstrated strong motivation to do well, and have given to the country through military service, the Peace Corps, or a national volunteer program of some sort for at least two years. Additionally, funding should be limited to areas of national need, such as the hard sciences.

I see no good coming of providing more funding for weakly motivated, impressionable students to be brainwashed by the Marxists that have managed to take over many of our colleges' and universities' liberal arts programs, particularly in special areas dealing with women and minorities.

4. I have a personal dislike of him. His emotionality reminds me of many True Believers that have gone bad.

Much of the wealth of some ultra rich is actually in the form of corporations and organizations that our society needs.

Frankly, I sense that he is too vindictive and nonthinking to avoid doing economic harm. People who feel Trump is a rabble rouser need to direct similar attention to Mr. Sanders.

 

I do not think it is liberalism per se. This country was founded on Classic Liberalism. The belief in individual freedom, free from authoritarian rule be it a monarchy, dictator, aristocracies, elitists or what have you. The belief in civil liberties and freedoms. A representative democracy with the rule of law. They believed in limited government, not an all powerful government that has emerged today. Personally I do not see that much of a difference between Classic Liberalism and traditional conservatism. Both believe in keeping government out of an citizens private business and lives.

Today progressiveness has replaced classic liberalism as neo-conservatism has replaced traditional conservatism. I think if the founding fathers appeared out of the past today they would equate our massive government to that of King George. I grew up in the 1950's when government, Washington, had very little dealings in a persons daily lives. Today there is not much one can do without having Washington involved one way or the other. Some will say that is a good thing, others abhor it.

Today we have become to rely on government instead of one's self or family or community. Perhaps it boils down to the age old question, is government the answer or the problem? Jefferson said, "A government that governs least, governs best." He also said, "A man should not be taxed by the sweat of his brow."

Could the ideals of the founding fathers where it comes to very limited government work today? Has the transformation from a very rural society to an urban one made their ideals and beliefs obsolete? Is classic liberalism dead along with traditional conservatism? Has our increase in population made it a necessity to have such a huge government? Can't people take care of themselves anymore? It is said the death of democracy comes from when the people learn they can vote themselves largess. Is that what we are doing today?

There are tons of questions, but probably no right or wrong answers.

 

Well, we started out as an idea and have moved forward over time. Some people don't want progress/change... but it is inevitable. And thank goodness for that, because we once thought it was a good idea to put people of color in chattel slavery and oppress and murder scores of others; those things were essentially deemed "okay" (even the norm).

So, what I see wrong on the Right is that they are the ones wanting to HOLD things where they are or "take the nation back" (artificially so) and I find that to be generally unhealthy... for the nation as whole.

There is some extremists BS going on (leaning toward the Right), that simply needs to be broken up and reformed.

So, I lean toward getting things more toward the Left... as much as I can affect things.

 

let americans think he is a socialist if it means voting for him please.

 

This, so very much this.

The US, on certain things, I agree does need to catch up to speed. We want to be considered the, "Land of the Free," then we need to up our game.

Insurance companies should not have nearly as much power as they do, deciding what they will, and will not pay for. Healthcare should not be a premium, nor a perk, but a benefit that comes with being a American. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have too much power, and far too much greed.

I read a YouTube comment once that said, "We already fund K-12, 4 more years isn't unreasonable." Education shouldn't have to require someone to work two jobs, just to get by, nor require a golden egg to afford a fancy paper with a colleges name and a couple signatures. Wolves in riches are probably (*)(*)(*)(*)ting themselves right now.

 

They won't, if they believe the propaganda of the Right, equating him with some communist bogeyman.

People need to become far more educated about what Democratic Socialism actually is. It's something America has practiced for 'centuries' (in actuality).

 

the book definition of a socialist means state controlled businesses, not even europe has that only china and russia a little.

he never said apple or microsoft should be owned by the government, he said medicare for all which is universal health care.

 

they won't become educated this quickly the entire system is too broken this should have been learned in high school, they just need a little envy of the rich to prod them in the right direction.

a socialist will quench that emotion quite nicely.

 

He is extreme compared to the ideological direction we have been heading over the last twenty years, but he is NOT too extreme for me. I like his views. Even if some of his proposals seem a little too left of center, it won't matter because Congress won't pass the legislation. They also won't pass Hillary's proposals so it is moot.

 

Good point.

 

I can't remember - did Kasich say he was to the Left of Sanders or Clinton?

 

I would like to see more traditional conservatism than progressiveness. I think the government is way too big and involved in way too many things. What you cited needed to be changed. No doubt about that. But let me give you the three tenets of traditional conservatism. My mentor on this was Barry Goldwater. Short version.

1. Avoiding foreign entanglements, the idea is this country should not go to war unless its national security is threaten. No more world's policeman and when this country does go to war, do so with a declaration of congress. then if we do go to war, do what ever is necessary with what ever means to win it and bring the boys back home as quickly as possible.

2. Fiscal responsibility - this means more than low taxes as the neo-conservatives seem to think. It basically means a balanced budget. the outflow matches the inflow. Spending matches revenues. How one gets that can mean cutting spending, it can mean raising taxes, it can mean a combination of both.

3. small government, I stated this before - Keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives.

Government has no business telling a citizen how to run his business and has no business in telling a citizen whether or not they can have an abortion or be married.

 

Yep. Goldwater was very 'sane' and 'reasonable', compared to the irrational Tea-Party BS infecting Congress today.

Until we get a more fair balance of political ideologies exerting power in Congress... I'll be leaning HARD LEFT for some time; likely the rest of my life.

 

I doubt that happens any time soon. Both parties continue to move further left and right leaving most Americans without a political home or party. 15 years ago independents made up 30% of the electorate, today they make up 45%. According to Gallup only 39% of the public view the Democratic Party favorably, it is worst for the Republican Party at 37%.

Soon there were be only the hard core from the left and right identifying with the two major parties. Take a look at how independents view the two probable nominees from each party, questions 12 and 13.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02052016_Ust53w.pdf

Hillary 39% favorable, 55% unfavorable
Trump 26% favorable, 64% unfavorable

The overall favorable/unfavorable ratings for the candidates are:

Sanders 44% favorable 35% unfavorable
Clinton 39% favorable 56% unfavorable
Trump 34% favorable 59% unfavorable
Cruz 36% favorable 42% unfavorable
Rubio 42% favorable 28% unfavorable

Strange that the two major parties seem bent on nominating the two candidates who are the most disliked by the American electorate. Perhaps that just re-emphasizes the polarization of Washington and the two major parties. Have both parties lost total contact with the American people? Either that or they just don't give a dang.

 

Bernie disagrees with you.

 

Bernie does not call himself a democratic capitalist, he calls himself a democratic socialist. He does not believe in capitalism, he has said he is "not a big believer in the free enterprise system."

Currently, federal, state, and local government spending amounts to 50% of GDP, and Bernie Sanders would undoubtedly increase that. Any new government plan is central planning of the economy, for example the healthcare and education sector.

They don't rank higher in medical technology. That's why when people need something important done in Canada, such as an MRI, they often come to the United States just so they can avoid the waiting list there. All these other countries could afford socialist healthcare because we were still the country cranking out new medical technology. That you give up medical technology with socialist healthcare is not really up for debate, even advocates of socialist healthcare admit this. So who is going to give us the toilets that analyze our feces for cancer if the United States-- the one last hope for really jamming up on medical technology-- embraces socialist healthcare?

We could do something really radical and actually practice free market healthcare, which we haven't in 70 years, where people pay out-of-pocket to help control costs rather than 90% of medical bills in this country being paid by a third party whether the government or insurance companies, but why not put all our eggs in one basket which has proven to fail over and over historically?

Yawn.. I'm so tired of this leftist tripe. Those of you still pushing this are being disingenuous at this point, I think. I'm sure someone has explained the reality of this earlier in this thread.

He is extreme. This is the one country which was founded on individual rights, on the Enlightenment, on the notion that our rights come from God and are inalienable, can't be taken away by force of the ruler, king, President, or even majority vote. Among these inalienable individual rights is the right to property. Bernie Sanders believes that he has the right to loot my wealth and force me to pay for single payer healthcare and free tuition for people to get Women's Studies degrees. That is, provided he packs enough economically ignorant millennials in voting booths. Bernie Sanders wants to steal my property-- for that, he is indeed a radical.

 

First off, in context of the current political climate its hard to make the case he is not extreme. He is.

Regarding your third point, we live in a much different world than in those years. In those years we were by far the most robust economy in the world, companies were American companies, there was a sense within the people that this was their country, and pastures weren't greener on the other side with WWI and WWII. Now we have multinational companies, a product of globalization. This country doesn't feel like home to many people now, greener pastures can be found. I believe if we were to enact ridiculous tax policies (I read that Bernie's health plan alone would be equal to the entire yearly federal tax and estate tax combined) then we would see a similar situation to what has happened to Detroit. The loyalty and national unity would not be there to enforce such expensive measures.

I know many conservatives I know disagree with me when I say that more socialistic policies would work in a country that is unified in culture, but we don't have one here.

 

LOL! Especially the no possessions part.

 

What? lol

 

He's saying Jeb Bush isn't very far right, and Bernie Sanders isn't very far left. Don't ask me why he thinks this, but that's what he's saying.

 

I find it interesting how Bernie identifies himself as a socialist but all his supporters say he is not. Are you implying he has zero understanding of economic theory? Or is it just that he is trying to tap into Gruber voters?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for clarifying. The whole "Bernie is a moderate" threw me off.