• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

You were the one focused on how much tax you pay and trickle-down.
Take your advice first and we wouldn't be here, a bad place for your team .
tres borrachos said:
Please return to the topic, which is Bernie Sanders. Thanks.

You can start another thread about trillions that the Libertarian party has given to the rich and the corporations. I'll see you in that one.
Click to expand...

You mean the GOP that you have always been a part of.
I see yer word games and raise you the truth, which has everything to do with honest Bernie .
 
NIMBY said:
Sure they do--yer just twisting their words as you commonly do.
You know damn well that trickle-down has been an abject disaster given to us by your GOP.

It's been more like a torrential up since the GOP hedge-funders like Romney came to town during Reagan .
Click to expand...

As opposed to what? The Socialist style of economics that failed in the Soviet Union and China? Just look at how much the economy has grown over the last 40 years, sure you have your downs, but the economy always recovers. It's only been when the government decides to get heavily involved, that the economy starts to grind to a halt.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's not a controversial character. In fact, he's one of the least controversial because he admits to being a socialist, something most of them who are can't admit to.

He doesn't oppose the Democrats on much, and never has. He's a Democrat to the core when it comes to his voting. People who pretend otherwise and cheer him like he's some Maverick are clueless. If he was elected POTUS, it would be no different than Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. And like Obama, his hand would be forced to do things he wouldn't want to do because we don't elect dictators in this country, as you know.

He's an interesting old guy, but he's a Democrat vote from top to bottom. Nothing independent about him.
Click to expand...

How can he be a Democrat and still claim to be a socialist? Surely, you're not going to support the RWENJ position that Democrats are socialists?
 
Dittohead not! said:
How can he be a Democrat and still claim to be a socialist? Surely, you're not going to support the RWENJ position that Democrats are socialists?
Click to expand...

Because he caucuses with the Democrats. He always has. I never said all Democrats are socialists and would appreciate you not implying that I did.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because he caucuses with the Democrats. He always has. I never said all Democrats are socialists and would appreciate you not implying that I did.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply you did. I said surely, you don't.

Because he caucuses with the Democrats, does that make him a Democrat? Are his positions those of the Democrat Party?
 
tres borrachos said:
How often is "very often"? What 10 key votes did he oppose Obama and the Democrats on?
Click to expand...

He's opposed virtually all of Obama's foreign policy measures, speaks frequently about the civil liberties violations - he's FAR closer to Ron Paul than Obama, voted against the bank bailouts, voted against the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan, voted against confirming Brennan, voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, opposes reauthorization of the ExIm bank, voted against extending the payroll tax cut (worried that it was robbing from the SS fund), he opposes all "free trade" bills that I know of, and is vocal about the corrupt process of drafting them, including the current proposals like TPP, etc.

If you want more than that, you can do your own research. He caucuses with democrats and therefore votes yes on things he doesn't approve of, but are the least bad option, like every known politician in world history, but I respect him and believe he's got more integrity than the VAST majority in D.C. If you don't, great. But you might listen to him a bit before deciding - I think you'll respect him even when you disagree.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, you are just fooling yourself if you don't think these guys would rewrite the Constitution in a heartbeat, if they could. The Constitution was built to limit government and protect our rights and liberties (along with the States), these guys are for big, all powerful government. They want judges that ignore the Constitution, and they certainly feel that the government should be redistributing wealth even more than it does now.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's a claim you cannot prove, secondly, are you unaware, or just ignoring the amount that the government grew under GWB? And did you know that the national debt doubled during Bush's presidency? That's right, it took two hundred years to accumulate 1 trillion dollars of debt to the nation, and 5 trillion dollars was added in just the eight years GWB was president. Both parties have added equally to the ND, both parties have taken us into unnecessary wars, both parties have supported militant Islamic groups, both parties have left our southern border unsecured, both parties have engaged in regime change, both parties have destroyed evidence of wrong doing, both parties have lawyer shopped to justify wrong doing, both parties have lied to the American public, both parties have used covert operations around the world to by-pass congressional authorities, (that's no exhaustive list) but, STOP being a partisan, and be a patriotic American demanding that BOTH parties adhere to our constitution. Otherwise, more of all the above will continue.
 
j-mac said:
I have personally calculated that I give approximately 50% of what I earn to one tax or another through the chain. How much is ENOUGH?
Click to expand...

what i would like to see happen is taxing investment income above a cap as income. if we did that, it would generate a lot of revenue. though i prefer the tax brackets of the 1990s, i'm negotiable on that.

i do think that we should cut corporate taxes significantly. i would guess that we agree on that one. i also think that the burden should not just be on the rich. the lower brackets probably need to be increased somewhat, too, so that everyone pitches in.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's not a controversial character. In fact, he's one of the least controversial because he admits to being a socialist, something most of them who are can't admit to.

He doesn't oppose the Democrats on much, and never has. He's a Democrat to the core when it comes to his voting. People who pretend otherwise and cheer him like he's some Maverick are clueless. If he was elected POTUS, it would be no different than Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. And like Obama, his hand would be forced to do things he wouldn't want to do because we don't elect dictators in this country, as you know.

He's an interesting old guy, but he's a Democrat vote from top to bottom. Nothing independent about him.
Click to expand...

I guess by your standards there are NO "independent" people in either party in Washington?
 
Anthony60 said:
It's not really an opinion question, as in mine versus yours. It's just cold, hard math. Just look at the projected unfunded liabilities that this government has rung up and I don't know how anyone would vote for someone that would spend even more. And to think that we can just raise taxes, as if they aren't high enough already, to cover those Trillions of dollars is just a mathematical impossibility.
Click to expand...

i also support serious reprioritization of tax revenue. we aren't the world's pro bono immune system. regional hegemons need to handle their own ****.

Anthony60 said:
And as an aside, are we just working to give the fruits of our labors to the government? When you add State, sales, federal, fees, etc... into what you pay for things, we are already giving up half of our earnings, maybe more, to the government. I thought this country was founded on individual liberties, and not being a slave to the government.
Click to expand...

you benefit immensely from societal structure and order. you are paid in pieces of green paper that society has decided are worth anything. you have social safety nets in case you ever need them, and universal food and health care for the poor (though it is delivered in the most inefficient way possible because a good chunk of the country opposes every attempt to fix it,) so you are safe from them rioting or robbing your house when their kid needs food or antibiotics. you're also protected from highwaymen and regional warlords.

"slave to the government" is hyperbole. you're a citizen of the US (and damned lucky to be one; a double digit percentage of the world would trade citizenship with you if given the chance.) in other words, you're in the catbird seat. taxes are the bill.

however, this debt **** has to be addressed. i would address it with a foreign policy redesign, new revenue streams, and a new mission statement that we will pay for what we buy rather than put everything on the damned credit card. this **** really does bother me.
 
Fiddytree said:
Liberal? He's a democratic socialist.

No, Sanders wouldn't stand a chance in hell. Unlike Perot or Ralph Nader, the guy would pull far less support.
Click to expand...

He would pull some, though, and not from the Republican voting pool.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I didn't imply you did. I said surely, you don't.

Because he caucuses with the Democrats, does that make him a Democrat? Are his positions those of the Democrat Party?
Click to expand...

Why are you playing word games? I have said repeatedly in this thread that he votes with the Democrats 98% of the time.
 
tres borrachos said:
Not many. And he is certainly not one of them unless you can show me how often he stands up to the Dems?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know even one person in D.C. that consistently stands up to their party. I don't think they exist by your standards.

I can cite dozens of votes against MOST democrats - it's a matter of reviewing the record, and I started a list with a brief review. What's difficult is finding a case where he was the deciding NO vote, but again, I can't name any democrat or republican who occasionally or often provides the final no vote defeating a bill important to the rest of the caucus.
 
JasperL said:
He's opposed virtually all of Obama's foreign policy measures, speaks frequently about the civil liberties violations - he's FAR closer to Ron Paul than Obama, voted against the bank bailouts, voted against the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan, voted against confirming Brennan, voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, opposes reauthorization of the ExIm bank, voted against extending the payroll tax cut (worried that it was robbing from the SS fund), he opposes all "free trade" bills that I know of, and is vocal about the corrupt process of drafting them, including the current proposals like TPP, etc.

If you want more than that, you can do your own research. He caucuses with democrats and therefore votes yes on things he doesn't approve of, but are the least bad option, like every known politician in world history, but I respect him and believe he's got more integrity than the VAST majority in D.C. If you don't, great. But you might listen to him a bit before deciding - I think you'll respect him even when you disagree.
Click to expand...

Obama wasn't President when the Iraq War was voted on.

The bank bailouts had dissenters on both sides.

How did he vote on Dodd-Frank? How did he vote on the ACA?

I don't disrespect Sanders. I will never vote for him because I don't want single payer, I don't want to overtax successful people, I don't want free child care, I don't want to diminish the impact of college by making it High School part 2.
 
JasperL said:
I'd like to know even one person in D.C. that consistently stands up to their party. I don't think they exist by your standards.

I can cite dozens of votes against MOST democrats - it's a matter of reviewing the record, and I started a list with a brief review. What's difficult is finding a case where he was the deciding NO vote, but again, I can't name any democrat or republican who occasionally or often provides the final no vote defeating a bill important to the rest of the caucus.
Click to expand...

They don't carry an "I" behind their names, do they?

He is a Liberal who wants socialism. I respect his honesty. I disagree with his desires.
 
tres borrachos said:
They don't carry an "I" behind their names, do they?

He is a Liberal who wants socialism. I respect his honesty. I disagree with his desires.
Click to expand...

OK, just wondering who the true independents were, and there aren't any.
 
JasperL said:
OK, just wondering who the true independents were, and there aren't any.
Click to expand...

No but I think that was obvious to everyone before, wasn't it? He's no more independent than anyone else. Don't get me wrong though - I do respect the guy for admitting he's a socialist, which sets him apart in that regard.

With the current structure in DC, no President is going to be able to change much. Single payer won't fly. We'll still march into ME countries (something I wish we would stop doing). And so on.
 
Democratic primaries including Sanders, Biden and Clinton will exude the positives of the DEM party.
Just as they did between Clinton and Obama in 2008.

Not so much in 2012 when GOPs lurched to the far-right with their mean-spirited attacks--except Huntsman .
Dittohead not! said:
How can he be a Democrat and still claim to be a socialist? Surely, you're not going to support the RWENJ position that Democrats are socialists?
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
They don't carry an "I" behind their names, do they?

He is a Liberal who wants socialism. I respect his honesty. I disagree with his desires.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, he calls himself a democratic socialist, so that's a fair characterization.

I guess the way I evaluate people on the right or left with regard to their political character is to imagine a majority of those like them in the Senate in this case. If you had 60 Chuck Schumers I doubt a lot would change. If you had 60 Bernie Sanders, we'd be living in a different country, if bills passing through the Senate became law. Same with Ron Paul, and a few others on the right.
 
It is clear what Sanders ultimate goal will be. He will run lead blocker for Clinton. He will be Clinton's bulldog going after the GOP hard while Clinton can stay above the fray until the GOP nominates their no. 1.
 
Actually the potential next Senator from Kansas, Mr. Orman, is a true independent, and Angus King comes very close from Maine.
Then again, so did Olympia Snowe before she retired in disgust--and Susan Collins still is.
And Sen. Manchin is also .
JasperL said:
OK, just wondering who the true independents were, and there aren't any.
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Maybe I missed the controversy on this forum. Where is it?

What other Democrats push the trickle down economic theory that he's countering?
Click to expand...

To be honest, none of the trickle down ever trickled down. However, what is worse would the kind of Socialism that Sanders would bring to the White House. And Hillary? She is a Neoliberal's Neoliberal. She might even have some Neocon in her. The last thing America needs is more Bush's or Clintons. I will vote Republican in 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom