Bernie Sanders is NOT extreme.

His presidency would be the end of the world. No nonsense. Literally. Nuclear wars between the nations. Israel and Iran, Russia and China, India and Pakistan. You name it. The world is already on fire as a result of Obama withdrawing America from the world's affairs. Things will get much worse under Bernie whose only concern in global affairs is about AGW and how to make money on it.

 

Maybe the world WILL end (complete reset). Even so, it's not up to "America" to maintain and/or fix the endeavors of mankind across this planet; nor is any other nation capable of doing that.

If there is any real hope, individual nations will decide to do better for themselves and mankind as a whole.

But no... the will of the American people cannot and will not be to take care of the WORLD, in perpetuity. That just isn't realistic.

 

That is why I referred to, "... the rest of my life."

I realize that significant sociopolitical changes can take 'generations'.

 

If Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks didn't teach Americans that isolationism doesn't work for them then they are deserving the troubles they are going to get.

 

Who said that "isolationism" was/is the way to go?

I'm simply talking about not being overly entangled and literally running this society RAGGED fighting so many wars.

That's the extreme we've been up to... and it is killing this society slowly. We need to think defense and reasonable involvement. We cannot and will not resolve every damned problem on this globe. That idea was insane for other nations and it's the same for us. History lessons can be used in many ways.

 

I'm at work so I'll respond to the above directly when I get home, but I'm curious on your expectations.

If Sanders wins the presidency... what then? Will the GOP (and the Dems a for a fair bit of his policy platform) not just block his proposed legislation? What's the point in having a President without the legislature?

Although I'm extremely anti-tax, I sort of want Sanders to win just for the entertainment.

 

I have an issue with drug clemency. Even if these people were "non-violent" drug offenders. Guess who they get paired up with in general population? That's right, violent inmates! This of course, isn't the fault of the non-violent drug offenders, but more the fault of how prison operates in general. I believe just as they are classified by level, so should they be segregated by the crimes they've committed.

Then there's of course the issue that drug offenders actually you know, committed offenses in prison! Very rarely is this actually tacted on their record though(the prison has a separate system for that.).

So I want them separated. And as far as clemency, how about something like this: Provided they didn't commit any other offenses, I'd set all non-violent drug offenses down to a "respectable" number, like anywhere from 1-4 years(And even then, only for hard drugs.) Soft drugs(like Marujiwana) should be legalized, taxed and regulated.

 

Bernie Sanders is not extreme at all like the OP says. He has some economic ideas that will be accepted when people get smarter in the future. But right now, there is just no way our dumb population will accept him.

 

Yes, because what America lacks is adequate rules! And what America needs is more head up their asses government bureaucrats making up rules and enforcing them on those they hold in disfavor. We all watched as Obama's Administration walked guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and escaped all accountability.

We all watched as the IRS singled out the Tea Party for unequal enforcements and has escaped all accountability.

We all watched as the Fed and Treasury bailed out corrupt banks and then the folks that drove the global economy to ruin were given bonuses.

We all watched as Hillary and State completely evaded communication security, Obama claimed ignorance, despite emailing back and forth on her private server.

We all have watched while the Government has taken post-9/11 rules and used them to snoop on Americans, yet it can't seem to ever spot terrorists, even those that blow social media before they blow up Christmas Parties and Marathons. It couldn't detect that Hillary was in mass violation of National Security protocol, but post-Benghazi, it was quickly able to produce emails between General Petraeus and his girlfriend.

We have all watched as the Federal Government has stumbled and bumbled from one mess to another of its own making.

We watched the Federal Government destroy Libya and now is eager to destroy Syria. We are supplying terrorists on one side that our allies are fighting on the other. Nobody has any idea which side is up.

And your answer is "Grow the Federal Government!" Are you out of your friken mind? The government is already badly over-extended and screwing up everything it touches. We need to take pruning shears to the Federal Government and prune it back to the duties that only it can do, and do well.

First, it isn't "free". Second, these are all high tax countries. Yes they have decided to do these things collectively, but they also pay the taxes to do so. In Bernie-Socialism... errr... "Bernie-Capitalism with a lot more rules" or whatever he is calling himself today, he claims he will tax the rich to pay for his flood of new spending. He might as well tax moonbeams. We have never shown an ability to effectively tax the rich. Until we demonstrate an actual ability to tax the rich, obviously we can't claim this as a means of additional spending. So first show that you can effectively tax the rich, produce more income to the government through these measures, and then we will decide if we are going to use this additional national income to fuel new spending or to close the budget gap.

And nobody actually paid those rates. Please see previous point.

You don't think the government is involved in Housing planning? CA just shut down a 50,000 unit planned suburb because they determined it would add to commute miles which would have the effect of increasing CO2 production. The idea that the government isn't now, today, deeply involved in housing planning is simply nonsense.

Post WWII the developed world had just ended its second civil war a single generation. We were the only Manufacturing Country without its manufacturing base lying in ruins and much of its workforce lying in graves. Any policies followed during such a time are going to appear to be wildly successful and as the developed world recovered their manufacturing base and workforce, the effectiveness of these policies will appear to erode.

I like Bernie. I think he believes his own bull(*)(*)(*)(*). He speaks out against the Oligarchy, but I have no interest in replacing Crony-Capitalism with Crony-Socialism. I want to get rid of Cronyism. As for his spending. If someone wants to engage in a bunch more spending and they also develop a plan to produce the resources they want to spend, I'm all for it. But this "We will take it from them and give it to you for free!" First, I have no interest in receiving loot. Second, a lot of people have claiming they were going to take more from the Rich, and yet they never do.

Sure he is. And he is trying to popularize failed turn of the last century policies that have repeatedly failed. Liberal Democracy is a much more effective form of government than Socialism. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. Now in our Liberal Democracy, there are some things, like Social Security that we have chosen to do collectively, and we pay the taxes to pay for it. I'm fine with that. But this, "we will loot them and give it to you!" crap. Well, how many times are you going to try to sell us the same load of garbage?

Well first he claimed to be a Socialist, then Democratic Socialist, then a Scandi-Socialist (and the Scandi's promptly set him straight). Now he is claiming to be a "Capitalist with a lot more rules!" So he is still trying to figure out who he is.

He has appealed to the youth in our nation, I give him that. Would the country be better off if he was elected President? Well, the office of the Presidency would be vastly weaker under Bernie, and there would be some benefits to that.

If Hillary is elected, she will be promptly impeached. Maybe Bernie should be her Veep.

 

I agree. Perhaps the difference between us is I want to see less government interference in a citizens daily life whereas you want more. Or am I misreading you?

But I do wonder if that is possible with our population and the urbanization that has taken place. When I grew up I was taught to take responsibility for my own actions and decisions. Today it seems everyone is being taught that it is everyone else's fault that one makes a decision or takes an action that is wrong, not his.

 

Those are the best arguments in the thread against Sanders, Clinton or any democrat. Worthy of making it a campaign ad.

Steve

 

I agree. The liberal favorites, Scandinavia is having problems paying for the benefits are is cutting back.

 

Scandinavia is having some problems, but they are a cohesive high trust industrious society that has been developing for hundreds of years. What they are today has been centuries in the making. They have developed in a particular fashion. To take something that works for them, and then from the top down, drop it on Chicago, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia? It's just nuts. These "master planners" always think they are so smart and what they really do, is royally screw up and then blame-cast. And that is not to say that Bernie isn't a firm believer and well meaning, I believe that he is both of these things.

Here are the foundations of Liberal Democracy that form the basic fabric of our nation: First and foremost, Justice is respect for individuals and associations of individuals.

(1) The right of property specifically recognises the right to acquire, possess, use, and dispose of physical resources— including our physical selves. We may use our resources in any way that does not interfere with other's using and enjoying their resources. We can give away any of our property rights, we can never give away our rights to ourselves.

(2) The first person to develop or acquire something has property rights to that they have developed and discovered. It is no one else's unless they freely contract to release it to another.

(3) The right of freedom to engage in labor and commerce means that our consent is both necessary (we cannot be forced) and sufficient (if we want to we can) to transfer our property rights during our lifetime and via a Will, on our death.

(4) Violating these rights by force or fraud is unjust.

And we do not perfectly adhere to these things, forming a "more perfect union" is an ongoing intergenerational process. We need to get back to these principles and return to taking them seriously. They have served us well, they are liberation and freedom. We simply must regain control of our Federal Government.

What I like about the Bernistas is they are motivated, involved, and I get the sense they are willing to endure incredible sacrifice and go to extraordinary lengths to realize a more just society. And that encourages me. I have the feeling our children are not as unlike our grandparents as we might think.

 

As I have said in several other posts, we are not deciding between capitalism vs socialism, we are deciding between socialism for the wealthy vs socialism for the working class.

The fact is the system is broken from too many years of socialism for the wealthy which has resulted in very unhealthy wealth disparity. The economy suffers when the working people do not have enough money to spend and keep it healthy, and the wealthy cannot support the economy buying yacht's and G5 jets.

While most people do not have the ability to think this out rationally, they do know at a gut level that what is going on now is not working.

Sander's is committing to do what Roosevelt did and step into level the playing field for the good of the country. While I hate to see even more socialism being instituted to fix the problems that socialism caused, it is the way government works. In the end, all socialist states end in disaster, but the governments know no other way but to usurp more and more power because it is against their very nature to act any other way.

 

Yea, perhaps a capitalist in the sense that the federal government is a business and we are their slaves...

At least big business has to deal with competition - our federal government has no competition.

What are you going to do run to Canada or Mexico when they start redistributing your (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

He thinks half of American thinks like he does.

Man, this site and it's unintended satire.

 

I'd say more than half the country is not socialist, actually. I might have been a little generous stating that half the country was socialist. Good catch.

 

Not extreme? what would your call someone that hung the USSR communist flag up in his office in the middle of the cold war when they was a mayor of an American town?

let me try to explain something simple to you the only reason America was able to get away with the 70-90% up to 150k and over tax rate back in the fifties is because we was the only major economy left standing after WW2 so it was able to get away with that high of a tax rate. business had no other place to go it is the same as being the only store in town so your able to charge higher then normal prices. in the early sixties once the other countries economies where up and running strong after WW2 JFK was forced to lower that rate so America was able to stay competitive

Please liberals do all of us a favor and learn some American history so we don't have to continue in every thread you make educate you on it

 

We could find decent compromises if we were working on actual policy... and that points to something I try to emphasize to many:

NOTHING significant that's done FOR this nation and the well being of its people, has ever come into being without 'compromise'. Those who are extremist or sport that, "my way, or the highway" attitude, just aren't reasonable and realistic people.

If we can all agree, disagree and get important things done... I suspect that is the BEST we'll ever be; which isn't 'bad' at all.

 

When they was whaat?

 

I hate to break this to you, but Trump said he will implement Single Payer (government) health care, so we are going to have socialized medicine regardless of which side wins.

 

Decent compromises were achieved when Daschle and Lott were the leaders of the senate, the same for Mitchell and Dole. The my way or the highway come into being when the senate leaders became Reid and Mitchell. A good leader realizes that politics is the art of the possible. It is impossible to get everything one wants without giving the other side something. That is unless you have a filibuster proof senate, which Obama had for about a year during his first two years in office. In that case you do not need a single opposition vote.

A good leader will also realize sometimes one must take a step or two backwards in order to move 3 or 4 forward. A good leader will always make sure the other side gets something, something of value to them in order keep you agenda moving forward.

Yes, you and me could work things out. We both realize politics is the art of the possible.We may not like the finished product much, but we would keep things moving forward for the good of the country, not the good of the party.

 

That doesn't matter. Most of Trump liberal views doesn't matter. What does is he said he would build a wall and Trump has a fighting spirit. There is a definite chance Trump would govern more liberally than Hillary.

 

Trump does not have a chance in hell of being elected unless he tucks his tail between his legs and agrees to do what he is told. If he does, it does not matter if he is elected because he will just tow the line ( which does not include a wall ) if he gets in and does not tow the line, he will be capped just like Kennedy as an example of what happens when you do not follow orders.