The Electing of President Sanders

1. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   What would the US be like under President Sanders? What do the Millennial's find so attractive about his political ideas?
   What do you believe are the consequences of his agenda as far as the future of the Nation?
   Does it sound wonderful?
   How so?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Socialism does not serve a nation well. 
      
      Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell
      *  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 … nd-hyperi/
      
      The people of Venezuela were fooled into accepting a socialist government, and are paying dearly for it now.  Radical left-wing criminals are running the show. 
      
      Venezuela, where a hamburger is officially $170
      *  https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-wh … tml?ref=gs

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      First of all, ISN'T ever going to occur.  American people aren't keen on Sanders and his socialist/communist social policies. They're sick of the liberal a/k/a leftist agenda in politics.  They want someone who will repair the country, so it's either Clinton or Trump.  A subset of them are seeing through Clinton and see Trump as the more desirable presidential candidate. There's NO CHANCE in Hades that Sanders will win.   Wonder why Sanders is STILL in the race.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I heard this answer recently on talk radio: The host said that people, on a very basic level, want to be taken care of. Socialism satisfies people's desires to be cared for. We feel insecure as humans. Humans know they are vulnerable and when there is no way to attain the power to combat the forces which conspire against them each and every day, which threaten to knock them down and bowl them over, they turn to government. 
         
         Here in the US more and more feel like victims due to their basic loss of freedoms ... with so many rules, regulations, fines, fees and requirements which block all avenues of forward momentum.
         
         Furthermore, parents / teachers / school systems do not foster children's  strength, intelligence and creativity anymore. Instead, they raise victims.
         
         Children have been stuck in schools where they learn, now more than ever, how to shut down their wills and be utterly obedient.  Obedient to who? Anyone with the ability to seem authoritative.
         
         Then they find themselves in college after they have been robbed of all that would have given them hope of true independence. So, they have no alternative but ask the government to bail them out as they have given up trying to take care of themselves. Take care of me! I can't even move out of my parents house! And they're are not even sure why.
         
         But, those who have been successful, (or used to be successful,) in obtaining independence know that Sanders advocates pouring gas on an already raging fire.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Kathryn , You hit that nail right on the head !    Americas younger populations   , although not exclusively , has grown up soft ,  lacking personal accountability or responsibilities  ,  handed pretty much everything it wants , needs or thinks it needs.     Why not ask for more , why not demand more , it worked at home , it worked in  daycare elementary and  high school . Especially in the entitlement  cultures where social-economic security blankets  has become the income source , we have become the entitlement society .
            
            Vote for Sanders , you'll get ALL of it and more .   Free health care , free  electricity , free pizza , free tequila and Bud light .   Jees .... , I mean come on what are you waiting for  , live for today  and to hell with the eventual costs !

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Abolishment of the NSA.  Reducing the military budget, so we can send people to college for free.  Raise taxes, so we won't have to pay as much on medical insurance.  Ending private prisons and the war on drugs; two things costing our economy millions.  I could go on and on, but the point is out of all the candidates running, he's the only one looking out for the little guy. 
      
      Hilary Clinton is bought and paid for.  Trump even proved that himself.   Donald Trump is a con artist.  just look at what happened with Trump University, and see how he swindled people out of their hard earned money.  Do you really think he's not going to do that to us too once he's elected? 
      
      Ted Cruz is a pathological liar that only says what he thinks you want to hear in order to get votes, so really Bernie is the only candidate that genuinely wants to help out the little guy.  Oh and he's not bought and paid for because he's not even taking any super pacs from any large businesses like most politicians do.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         So in other words . "Free , Free , free , free and ah , free." ?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So I guess you don't mind the NSA continuing to spy on you even though your not a terrorist.   I guess u also think its OK to spend millions of dollars on wars and private prisons instead of a future where children can go to college for free without being in debt from student loans huh? 
            
            Although I don't always agree with Michael Moore but in his recent documentary, where to invade next, he interviewed a European teacher who said and I quote that when she used to teach in the US that she ALWAYS had to lie to students whenever she said they could become anything they want if they work hard enough because of how the system is in the US and how schools care more about standardized tests rather than the students themselves.
            
            Yet over in Europe, she said she doesn't have to lie to her students because whenever she tells them they can do anything they want if they work hard enough, then its true because the educational opportunities are there for them.
            
            But I guess spending money on a facial recognition system that helps the government identify terrorists and pedophiles based purely on the genetics of their face is way more worth it to you than making sure the children of our country get a decent education huh? 

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               -The NSA can come to my house for a beer and a burger , WHY ?  I have nothing to hide and proud of it .
               -If one has to go to war , one has to spend billions
               - Private prisons can be run cheaper than publically funded ones , Why ? Private companies do not suffer public  unions .
               -Michael Moore is a total idiot and I wouldn't believe ANYTHING he says .
               -The reason American students CAN go further  in life is because of free market economic and entrepanurial  system , barring being lazy or incompetent   the better chance is in America . But you know that.
               -Facial recognition over  education -that's out there , Now come on that's quite a stretch .
               -

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, facial recognition does exist, as it was reported on the news that the pentagon just bought the rights to the system.  TYT did a story about it.  If you like, I'd be more than happy to give you a link, so you can watch the video yourself.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Anyways don't take my word for it.  Here's the link for you to look at, as it's quite scary to think about.  However, i guess you'd rather the government use whatever tax payer's money on something like this rather than using it to put your children through college without any financial burden. Sad. 
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmIwk59F7o

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Exactly WHY should my government put my children through college for free to begin with ?   
                     And no ,  I'm not a cross dresser  so I guess I don't fear the NSA to begin with ......dodododododo....?Yawn .

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        So you'd rather have our government invest millions of dollars in a faception scan that determines who's a pedophile or a terrorist based on nothing more than the hidden genetics of their faces than using that same said money to help send your children and possibly future grand children through college?  The same children who could grow up to be the future leaders of our world, but you'd much rather screw them over for some face scanning device that may or most likely won't deter terrorists/pedophiles.

                        replyreport
            2. 76

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               There is but a wee problem with all your "free" stuff.
               
               Until you can find professors that will work for nothing and raise their own food, until you can find an empty building that no one uses and someone that will pen and compile all the textbooks, college isn't free for the (adults, not children) that would use it.
               
               Until you find doctors that, like the professors, will work for free and raise their own food, until you find empty, unowned buildings that magically have operating rooms and power you can use as a hospital, until you find skilled nurses that don't require remuneration for their work, neither health care nor health insurance will be "free".
               
               No, all the wonderful "free" things you want people to have aren't free at all for there is no magic college tree or medical tree to pick the fruit from.  What you really mean is you will force someone else to pay for the things you want others to have.  TANSTAAFL (google it if you don't recognize it) - which in this matter means bread and circuses (google that, too, along with the author Robert Heinlein if you don't recognize it either).

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Then please explain why various European countries can afford to send their people to college for free, yet the professors that teach at said colleges still get paid, so please explain that.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     You mean the countries that are going bankrupt?  That are losing their health care system for lack of funding?  That can't pay their teachers a living wage? 
                     
                     Those European countries?
                     
                     http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … ?CMP=fb_gu
                     
                     (Did you understand the meaning of "free"?  That it isn't "free" at all, just paid for by someone not benefiting from it? TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.)

                     replyreport
      2. 78

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Bernie Sanders' supporters are shocked when they find out that he is funded by millionaries and billionaries.   Truth is!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            FALSE Again, but what else is new? ~
            
            The TRUTH is, Trump NEVER Self-FUNDED his "Road TRIP of Racism, LIES, Fraud & Deceit" and NOW via a NEW "PAC", a "CORRUPTER" which he claimed separated him from the PACK, will be Controlled by "Puppet-Masters" looking to TIE Wires to the "Donald's" Extremities ~ ~
            
            Wait until the DETAILs of this Trump "Special Interest" Fund Raising Effort SURFACE ~ Talk about a "SHOCK" ~ Just one more reason WHY "Drumpf" will NEVER become president ~

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               If Bernie loses to Hillary then I think Trump will easily win the election because nobody really trusts her and it seems anti establishment is popular with today's young voters so I wouldn't rule it out.  Not to mention she's not as liberal as most democrats would like her to be. 
               
               And unlike Bernie, you know damn well Trump is going to use every dirt he can find on her against her to his advantage.  At least with Sanders, Donald would have nothing to use against him during debates because if trump isn't able to insult someone during a political debate then he's practically useless. 
               
               Plus I don't think Bernie supporters would rally behind Hilary the same way Cruz supporters would for trump if and when he wins the nomination for the GOP
               
               Not saying I'd vote for Trump because I wouldn't but just saying

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  They will NEVER give the Keys to OUR White House to an Incompetent, Mentally Unstable Swindler like Trump regardless of how many PRAYERs his tiny group of FANz recite ~
                  
                  When you Threaten to ARM More Countries with Nukes, and Threaten to DEFAULT on the U.S. Debt which would be nothing less than Catastrophic for the ENTIRE Planet, as Trump has, you've pretty much Disqualified yourself from holding public office ~
                  
                  Unless you're a Racist, Irrational "END Timer" or FOOL, you should feel comforted by this ~

                  replyreport
         2. 70

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Link please.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Let's put it this way, Hillary Clinton isn't the only one funded by Wall Street, Bernie is too. How about the Federal Reserve?  George Soros ...  and so much more.  I'm not trying to flummox, just facts.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  And where is the evidence of these "facts"?

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Top donors for each of the remaining candidates:
                  
                  Bernie Sanders:  https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cont … =N00000528
                  
                  Hillary Clinton:  https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cont … =N00000019
                  
                  Donald Trump:  https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cont … =N00023864

                  replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   I mean it looks so good!
   " ... when a disheveled old white dude comes along and says our society is rigged for the rich, perpetual warfare is not the answer, and people of color should not be slaughtered by the police—and then asks for our help and a few dollars to bring about a revolution—you’re damn right we’re going to stand with him."
   http://time.com/4299321/millennials-bernie-sanders/

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   What will the nature of his revolution be?
   Why do we not ALL get on board?
   Just Curious

   replyreport
4. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 9 years ago

   America would be subjected to something unheard of before - a true change for the worse for most.  After the mega-high taxes and his plethora of social programs, he'd quickly be impeached.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, the mega high taxes of the fifties killed the economy. NOT! It was a really huge economic boom that we experienced as everyone was able to earn a living where wages allowed us to buy and spur on the growth we had never seen before. The concessions made to the very rich they have hoarded buying influence and perpetuating the trickle down myth we now believe as the truth. It only sent incredible wealth up the ladder to the very rich is what happened.
      
      Bernie could never get all that he proposes because Congress would not allow it. But he could start a movement that addresses trade deficits and job growth Congress now ignores along with the establishment politicians.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Why is it that everyone keeps referring to those huge taxes of the 50's?  For they were NOT huge - only the top rates were.  Rates that no one paid after deductions and loopholes.  Even the rich have seen their actual taxes paid rise since then; those "concessions" so blithely referred to were tax increases, not concessions.  Taxes actually paid of course, rather than paper numbers that had no correlation to reality.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            RJ Schwartzposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the voice of reason..as usual wilderness

            replyreport
         2. 70

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Because it was the starting point by which the very rich were required to invest back into the country or lose it to the government. With recent ideologies and influence the very rich have become less inclined to invest the money but rather hide it in tax havens offshore. This is not rocket science after all. You are too smart to refer to this as the answer. We had such an increase investment and employment due to it. What other reason do you attribute to the boom in the fifties and sixties.and don't tell me it was the government because the government currently outspends more than we did in the fifties.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               The 50's were hardly the starting point of taxes, but it was an investment in the country as it brought about huge infrastructure gains, notably the interstate highway system.  Unlike today when so much of it goes to entitlements that do nothing for the country as a whole?
               
               You're right - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that people will protect what they have to the best of their ability.  Nor to figure out that taking too much will kill the goose, but somehow that goose is always considered to be inexhaustible to those that want more than they can afford and have the power to take it from someone else. 
               
               As far as the boom - are you seriously proposinig that it was due to tax rates so far beyond anything reasonable that massive loopholes and tax avoidance schemes had to be invented as well?  That's what you think drove the economy?
               
               It couldn't have been from the biggest production line the world had ever seen (coming out of WWII) coupled with the biggest influx of labor (women) ever seen?  It's not possible that productivity, pure and simple, was the #1 reason the economy did so well?  I realize that that word, productivity, is a nasty one to the entitlement crowd, but it sure seems to me that it plays a massive part in anything economic.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That would seem to be true from what I have read throughout history.
                  
                  ADDED: Something I stumbled on. 
                  
                  Keynesian economics served as the standard economic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the oil shock and resulting stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the financial crisis of 2007–08 caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought, which continues as new Keynesian economics. (Wikipedia)
                  
                  The Keynesian god of borrowing from the future to fund today's consumption has failed
                  http://www.infowars.com/were-in-the-eye … hurricane/

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     "Karl Marx laid down these strategic devices not as socialism per se but as the means of emasculating private enterprise before instituting a functional socialism. This is precisely what the hard core Keynesians set out to do. With Marx’s clear exposition we begin to understand the Keynesian give-away programs and the soaring national deficit policies in which as stated above, “appear economically insufficient and untenable.”"
                     *  http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/Key … -ch10.html

                     replyreport
               2. 70

                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  It is funny that you rail against higher taxes to the very top while they reap the rewards of cutting out the jobs that the rest of us have to make it up with. When you have corporations pay virtually nothing and yet the middle class is socked with the lions share you claim entitlements as the culprit. While we find fewer jobs that pay enough to afford shelter and food and the very rich profit from it, the race to the bottom will leave us all looking for an entitlement we can survive with as the thievery will encompass us all..

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     And it is funny that you continue to complain that someone paying 1,000 times the taxes you pay aren't paying enough.  For the exact same thing, mind you.  That some of the population is automatically evil (because they earn more than you do) and thus must pay more for the same product.  This is something I will never understand, just as you will never agree that "fair" means paying the same thing for the same product.  Somehow, a select few must be charged more in your mind.
                     
                     It is also funny that you simply ignore, as if it isn't true, that excessive entitlements (such as we give out now) destroys incentive to work.  That, given a choice, people will generally choose to work for their food rather than simply accept it for free.  It is an attitude that is completely baffling to me as we all know better; the effort put into finding ever better prices is but a small symptom of the same thing and we all do that.  It's why WalMart is so successful, after all, and why the jobs have all left for other shores, (because we as citizens won't pay our neighbor a decent salary) but you still insist people would rather put out a large effort for what they can have for nothing.  Very odd, but it's the liberal way, I guess - hide in the sand and pretend that people aren't what they are.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes if you make more you should pay more. To put consumption or use on an equal basis is what has brought this imbalance. The want for equality is a pipe dream as it never is in the minds of those that play the system either through buying influence or avoiding paying. Nick Hanaurer who Is a billionaire says that the system is tilted towards the very rich and talks of the advantages his wealth brings him with regard to business opportunities and tax dodges. Equality? You are living in a dream world and haven't an argument as to the effectiveness of your war on entitlements that make up a small portion of the budget.
                        
                        Walmarts success is based on its carefully rewarding those that capitalize on the trade deficit with China and other sources for cheap American job killing tactics to turn a profit. Walmart is also in the process of cutting back and closing stores because the market place is shrinking due to the lower paying jobs that are left in the wake that cannot afford their cheaper goods. Your race to the bottom is now showing its ugly reality.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, I know you feel that some should pay more for the same product than others do.  What I don't understand is your justification for it; that they produced/earned more hardly seems a reason to charge them more so that it can be given to those that do not produce or earn as much.
                           
                           No, Walmart's success is based on consumer greed for the most product for the least price.  The company is a master at producing just that, and it what keeps them going.  Walmart may be closing stores, but I have a strong feeling that it is due to laws that encouraged and rewarded over-building.  There are, for instance, 4 WalMarts within a 5 mile radius of my home.  Far more than the market can support.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              Production and earned are an assumption on your part. Changing laws and buying influence, is that a part of the earning process to you? Supporting laws and policies that promote their welfare over others to the detriment of the common good is okay I see in your eyes.
                              
                              Walmart is closing stores in its' war with Amazon in the race to the bottom. We are forced to support these establishments because of the shrinking dollar and our ability to find sustainable income. The consumerism we once enjoyed for our employment is disappearing. Take away the entitlements and how will that improve any of this?

                              replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      RJ Swartz ,  exactly   and that is why Sanders should never be allowed near the white house  , If it wasn't for an eighty percent  + democratic legislated ,Vermont state political system , he would have been fired along time ago !     He is an avowed socialist , sighting Norway of all nations as what he believes America should be like .  He's from my home state  and is the main reason  I don't tell many people I was actually born here !
      
      A Sanders Presidency , would equal an  instant  eighty percent tax  rate  ,   But ,we would all have a lot of " rainbow stew  and free bubble- up" !   Although every corporation in America would instantly lock their doors and move to China .    Ya ! Sounds like a great strategy !

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   We have reached a tipping point in America and  our  moving towards a  political  wish list of "socialism"  IS purely entitlement driven ,   THE REAL PROBLEM IN AMERCA  ;  dealing with our political immaturity  is  the lack of intellectualism  AND wisdom in  arriving at  a political maturity !   Our present day voting culture is  almost totally socially , politically ,  and intellectually immature .
   
   Even our earliest fore-fathers  were far ,far more mature in their  politically ,  intellectual  vigilance .    There is , even with an incredibly powerful media  ,   an incredible  lack of  truly informed  voters .   Political correctness  has run  rampant with the last generations in politics ,   Millenniums , although not alone , have all but destroyed  our  once informed  way of vetting - voting    a candidate .
   
   The American voter needs a major ass slapping .   That's about the most real way of  describing the present day  maturity level  that I can use  to describe what's going on .

   replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   
   
   This say's it all and says completely enough  for me !  What an idiot .

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It is equally ludicrous to believe one has to fight in a war to understand the horror and need to avoid it. To be a conscientious objector to war is not a slight on ones character unless you wish to have someone with war on their mind tending the button.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Do you then think that a CO has the temperament to conduct a war?  To send thousands to fight, knowing that thousands will never return?  Or does that need a rather different attitude, one that doves and CO's likely don't have?
         
         Or is war always avoidable by talking enough?  ISIS will go away and leave us alone if we just find the right words from our vast experience of placating terrorists?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            A CO is absolutely the person to be in charge of choosing to send people which could be to their deaths if need be. The warrior class presidents who are bound by political and empirical views of Americas conquests are the most bias group to have in charge of it. We have found in the aftermath of many of these decisions the absolute disregard for the lives of our service people for the promotion of the flagrant lack of purpose these decisions have had as a result. I want a President who weighs all these things and especially the value of life over conquest.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Really?  I think I'd have to disagree.  While a "warmonger" may start unnecessary wars and cause unneeded deaths, a CO, a true pacifist, will not go to war at all but instead allow foreign invaders to conquer at will, and likely with far more deaths.  Of the two I know what my choice would be.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I guess we will cancel each other out then.

                  replyreport
7. 78

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   Alternative Prime, did you come into the forums today just to troll my posts with you spammy false posts?   
   God have mercy on you!
   
   It is truth that Bernie Sanders' is funded by millionaries and billionaries. You won't read that or hear that on the liberal bias mainstream media, because they like to hide facts and brainwash their loyal viewers with the propaganda Obama made legal in 2012.
   
   Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, H. R. 5736. 
   
   Stay in your utopia dream state if you like fantasy, AP (snooze) News.
   Best wishes!

   replyreport