• 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

Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to serve the government, the government is here to serve the people. And they have forgotten their place. I'm not lucky to give the government 50% of my property, which I alone earned. The government is lucky to have me (us). I don't owe the government anything, there is no "bill". The government is a necessary evil. One which should be watched, regulated, and reeled in as often as possible. Not the other way around, like we have now.

The problem is that we have too many citizens, blind to what is happening in front of their faces, that enable this type of government. Looking for ways to get more tax revenue for the government. Yeah, let's all put our heads together and figure out ways to get more of our money in the hands of government. They have done so well with it in the past. There is something seriously wrong with thinking like that, but our government sits ready to take advantage of us through those people. Very useful, to the government.
 
poweRob said:
nahh... he's for a very well regulated capitalism. Not overtaking industry. Like putting glass/steagal back into place for the banks.
Click to expand...

Then, he's using the term "socialist" pretty loosely, isn't he?
 
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because both parties are the Corporate Party.
 
1750Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not even close. He's no fan of Hillary's stance and says so rather frequently. He's said he will run IF no one will challenge Hillary from the left because she is too far to the right already.
 
Hard Truth said:
In my view paying a full-time worker enough to live on decently is every employer's responsibility as decent human beings. Paying desperate people inadequate wages is immoral exploitation.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. They can pay more if they want, but their competition will just cut them down. The market sets the price for wages, companies don't, that would be collusion. When's the last time you went to a store solely because you knew you would pay more, all else being equal? I'll answer for you, never. People don't do that and stores like that can't survive.
 
Hard Truth said:
Real liberals (like Kucinich, Sanders and only a few others holding federal elective office,) would end the deficit swiftly by eliminating unnecessary expenditures on the drug war, police state and Patriot Act excesses and unnecessary toys, experimental weapon design and building, closing foreign military bases, ending the USA's role as World Police, and ending corruption in government grants, tax breaks, purchasing and contracting....if they can get the legislation passed.
Click to expand...

Very doubtful, they are big spenders. For every dollar they cut on defense (and our security as a nation), they would spend two on social welfare. Don't get your hopes up with this crowd.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And yet, he's opposed Obama in foreign policy issues. He voted against extending the payroll tax cut. He voted against the bank bailouts, voted against the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan. It seems to me he opposes the POTUS on some pretty important issues. In the area of foreign policy in particular, he's more of a libertarian than a Democrat.
Click to expand...

I think most rank and file Democrats support most of Sander's foreign policy ideas, but not the leadership.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Then, he's using the term "socialist" pretty loosely, isn't he?
Click to expand...

I'd say so. I think he's for very strong social programs but not all out socialism. What I think is interesting is that the demonization of social anything is so pervasive and he keeps it in his declared title and doesn't run from it like a coward. I think his running will make people actually look at what it is rather than just spew it out like some kind of nationally understood pejorative.
 
I believe 1750Texan is spot-on, even if his prediction is an unintended consequence.

I want Sanders to challenge Clinton on the issues since he won't drag the discussion into the same mud GOPs play in.
It will make her a stronger candidate during debates, since the withering attacks on her well before 1992 will not bother her .
poweRob said:
Not even close. He's no fan of Hillary's stance and says so rather frequently. He's said he will run IF no one will challenge Hillary from the left because she is too far to the right already.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
No, it isn't. They can pay more if they want, but their competition will just cut them down. The market sets the price for wages, companies don't, that would be collusion. When's the last time you went to a store solely because you knew you would pay more, all else being equal? I'll answer for you, never. People don't do that and stores like that can't survive.
Click to expand...

The fact is that we have minimum wage and other labor laws to limit the power of the marketplace and for many good reasons.

You're right that the consuming public shares this responsibility. I never shop at Walmart and avoid Chinese made goods. We can all do more by buying less, buying local, buying union made and avoiding buying from the worst exploiters.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I'd say so. I think he's for very strong social programs but not all out socialism.
Click to expand...

Sanders hasn't come to the realization that we must decrease the increases in every aspect of the budget, including social programs.

And I saw what happened last December when Congressman Ryan and Sen. Murray
tried to save billions by taking away one of the three COLA points from Veteran's pensions.
Military and Neo-con state pols from both parties deep-sixed this "very small" agreement, as it was called.

How much is enough for the wealthy officers, paraphrasing Ted Kennedy?

And neither party dares talk of means-testing--
hopefully Ryan/Murray will continue to have a great working relationship when Ryan takes over Ways and Means next year .
 
poweRob said:
Then why did you bring the race card into this thread in the first place?
Click to expand...


Could be that I carry my wallet in my left rear pocket and it's a little thin because all of the taxes I have to pay in California so it's causing me to lean to the left when I'm sitting.
 
In dangerous places such as behind your Orange Curtain, I keep the wallet up front or in a zip-lock pocket of a jacket.
APACHERAT said:
Could be that I carry my wallet in my left rear pocket and it's a little thin because all of the taxes I have to pay in California so it's causing me to lean to the left when I'm sitting.
Click to expand...
 
Hard Truth said:
The fact is that we have minimum wage and other labor laws to limit the power of the marketplace and for many good reasons.

You're right that the consuming public shares this responsibility. I never shop at Walmart and avoid Chinese made goods. We can all do more by buying less, buying local, buying union made and avoiding buying from the worst exploiters.
Click to expand...
Not to mention buying burgers not made of pink slime, leading inevitably to higher medical costs for the Nation.

I buy burgers from our local independent small businesses, one of whom is a good friend of mine.

I see the difficulties that crop up for him, such as his old computer sysyem going out--
$20,000 for a new one he can't afford--so they are currently using paper and a calculator.

I also buy bulk pounds of Italian Beef from him for our family get togethers .
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think you're right. So, why do they support the leadership?
Click to expand...

Lack of choice. Being an incumbent is such an advantage that it is hard to get rid of them. Removing an entrenched legislator means losing seniority priveleges for your district and the goodies that come with that extra power. Also dependence on, and/or fear of, big corporations with big campaign money.
 
Hard Truth said:
Lack of choice. Being an incumbent is such an advantage that it is hard to get rid of them. Removing an entrenched legislator means losing seniority priveleges for your district and the goodies that come with that extra power.
Click to expand...

That sounds to me like a good argument for term limits or for redistricting.

Maybe for both.
 
APACHERAT said:
There's not enough room, that where I pack my pistol.
Click to expand...

I thought folks did this with a holster as to not allow it to printed on their jacket.
I have a great North Face for that--lots of pockets .
 
Sen. Harkin of Iowa knew when to say when--not seven termer Hatch though.
Harkin's 40th steak fry was full of tears this past weekend.

Term limits have been a GOP tool Americans have stupidly succombed to since 1994, the class of Boehner and 2010.
Notice how Boehner has kept that 12-year promise--at least retiring Sen. Coburn did .
Dittohead not! said:
That sounds to me like a good argument for term limits or for redistricting.

Maybe for both.
Click to expand...
 
There was a strong "anyone but Romney" contingent during the Repub primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an "anyone but Hillary" contingent in the Democratic Party. She's really quite awful.
 
NIMBY said:
I thought folks did this with a holster as to not allow it to printed on their jacket.
I have a great North Face for that--lots of pockets .
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a pocket pistol ? That's what pockets are for.
 
I checked one out the other night.
If using a pocket, I'd still prefer one in a jacket--just faster for me.
Plus your hand in the jacket is ready to roll at all times . .
APACHERAT said:
Have you ever heard of a pocket pistol ? That's what pockets are for.
Click to expand...
 
Which is why GOPs are promoting anyone but Clinton.
Exactly why I'm promoting Cruz .
reinoe said:
There was a strong "anyone but Romney" contingent during the Repub primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an "anyone but Hillary" contingent in the Democratic Party. She's really quite awful.
Click to expand...

She was 3rd in Iowa in 2008.
she's up by 59 points right now .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom