Sanders/Paul Let's push it!

originally posted by: neo96
Sanders/Paul ?

HELL NO.

For once we agree.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I agree.

We are always going to have that, but it is taken to new levels year after year.

The issue isnt partisan politics.....its that we have forgotten as a country that its ok to have different opinions and to find a common ground........

Its because we have abandoned our principles in place of ideologies......

I believe the two go hand in hand. The latter has caused the former, or vice versa.

As far as principles abandoned for ideologies, I couldn't agree more. My view on the cause is not popular on ATS.

a reply to: neo96

Your quote applies to more than just the presidency. In most leadership positions throughout the country from CEO's, to Presidents, to small business owners those who are most capable are their employees and advisors. We do not live in a meritocracy, what we live in is a world where people are put in positions to make decisions precisely because they aren't brilliant enough to be paralyzed by the details of the outcomes of those decisions, or smart enough to realize that they don't know everything and there's an overwhelming chance their decision is incorrect. They take an action and stick with it right or wrong.

The democratic approach exemplifies this because you not only have a candidate who only superficially understands the issues (but presumably has advisers that do) , but you have a voter base that doesn't understand the issues, and doesn't want to learn about them because they think they already know everything they need to know.

I think that an actual intellectual could win the presidency, we've had them before and they turned out fine. The problem is that we don't have anyone like that in politics today. Give me a person who has 400 credit hours worth of college level classes across a variety of fields like politics, economics, and mathematics, 15 years experience in the real world some of which as an entrepreneur that made something of value (including a patent or two, built by them not an employee), and 3-5 years experience in politics. I think that person would make an excellent president.

There's room in politics for the occasional person whose entire image is that they're smarter than most people and know what they're talking about, particularly if they have the background to back it up. Then again a lot of people vote on ridiculous premises like if they could have a beer with the person or if the president would back them up in the middle of a bar fight... so perhaps I'm over estimating voters here.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Rand would never run with Sanders....

Sanders is far too socialist....his idea of taxing 90-95% on income alone would throw Paul into a constitutional tirade, the likes of which Sanders would never recover.....

Rand paul is way too strong on constitution.....

Sanders and Paul are actually pretty close on a lot of issues. Once you throw away the left/right labels what it really comes down to as their primary difference is that Paul wants to raise taxes on the lower and middle class while lowering taxes on the upper class (the effect of a flat tax) while Sanders wants to lower taxes on the bottom/middle while raising taxes on the upper (the effect of a higher marginal rate).

I'm in the group that could easily vote for either.

The most important parts in my mind are that both want to dismantle the draconian spying going on, both want to take on the banks, both want to stop screwing with the Middle East, and neither are beholden to corporations.

a reply to: amazing

You were doing good until you let your partisan hate slip out.

Calling people fools who don't do things the way you think they should and making biased, broad-brush statements about how someone will govern due to matters of faith are actions that have gotten us to this partisan nightmare.

I guess demeaning and marginalizing your opponent is the norm now.

To bad because I had some hope at the beginning that this could be avoided.

ManBehindTheMask was dead on with this statement.

Its because we have abandoned our principles in place of ideologies......

a reply to: neo96

excellent and eye-opening quote/posts my friend. i have seen a new point of view today.

a reply to: amazing
Funny...I was just telling someone the other day how I wish I could get a Hybrid ix of the two.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: neo96

excellent and eye-opening quote/posts my friend. i have seen a new point of view today.

Mencken raises a couple good points, where he loses me though is with the idea of superior and inferior people. If a person or culture is happy with their social order or position in life shouldn't that be enough? A high school dropout who isn't particularly bright that works construction but enjoys working with his hands and building things of value isn't in my opinion superior or inferior to a Harvard educated lawyer that is routinely tasked with arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court, or the CEO making 3000x the construction workers salary who has 1500 minions at his command.

He's right about liberty though. Actual liberty as a notion is unsustainable and impossible for any more than a small segment of the population. But, I disagree with him that liberty (by his definition) is actually a worthwhile endeavor.

I think it far more likely that if we were to see a bipartisan ticket, it would be from Clinton and Bush. They're both far more likely to "come together" for the good of the country, and they're both far closer in their beliefs than most people realize.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think it far more likely that if we were to see a bipartisan ticket, it would be from Clinton and Bush. They're both far more likely to "come together" for the good of the country, and they're both far closer in their beliefs than most people realize.

Hillary would not take the VP seat. Not sure about Jeb but I highly doubt it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think it far more likely that if we were to see a bipartisan ticket, it would be from Clinton and Bush. They're both far more likely to "come together" for the good of the country, and they're both far closer in their beliefs than most people realize.

One would have to win the primary while the other loses. Then one would have to run as an independent and eventually cede to a VP slot. I think that if this were to happen people would quite literally riot. Plus, we have enough of the Bush/Clinton hate going on already, just imagine if those two were to run on one ticket. How long would it take for the little known fact of how close those two families are to be parroted by their opponents as a consolidation of power and a vote for them being the reestablishment of a monarchy?

I'm currently 32, for 29.5 years of my life there has either been a Clinton or a Bush within the top 5 in the line of succession to be President. The only time this hasn't been true has been since 2012. Nearly my entire life, and still true for a huge portion of life for those older than me. I think we can all agree that enough is enough here. It's time to put different people in these positions.

originally posted by: Xeven
Hillary would not take the VP seat. Not sure about Jeb but I highly doubt it.

Hillary would take VP for the historical significance, it's almost a perfect position for her actually. Given her general incompetence and lack of duties that most VP's have it's not a stretch to say that if she were to somehow get on a winning ticket VP is the safest place to have her.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: neo96

excellent and eye-opening quote/posts my friend. i have seen a new point of view today.

Here's another.

What is any political campaign save a concerted effort to turn out a set of politicians who are admittedly bad and put in a set who are thought to be better. The former assumption, I believe is always sound; the latter is just as certainly false. For if experience teaches us anything at all it teaches us this: that a good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. Prejudices, Fourth Series (1924)

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: amazing

You were doing good until you let your partisan hate slip out.

Calling people fools who don't do things the way you think they should and making biased, broad-brush statements about how someone will govern due to matters of faith are actions that have gotten us to this partisan nightmare.

I guess demeaning and marginalizing your opponent is the norm now.

To bad because I had some hope at the beginning that this could be avoided.

ManBehindTheMask was dead on with this statement.

Its because we have abandoned our principles in place of ideologies......

This is what you were talking about though...I said.

Just wanted to add that you fools who listen to talk radio and think Obama's destroying our nation, aren't really paying attention. It's both parties and it's more congresses fault than our last couple of presidents and as you look at Obama and think that Bush would be better, you're missing the real issue again. They're fooling you.

All I'm saying is you can't listen to anything from any of the dividers on talk radio. They're all the same lying and trying to divide us. Traitors like Hannity, and LImbaugh and Savage and Ann Coulter and Maher and whoever else. Even Denise Miller. All they want to do is divide us.

Also that Obama isn't destroying our country. That's a lie meant to take our attention away to the partisan politics of congress.

Wake up. The take away from that post is that anyone listening to talk radio is foolish and being brainwashed and believing that a democrat is better than a republican or that a republican is better than a democrat or that Bush is Better than Hillary. That's the thinking that we need to break free from.

a reply to: Aazadan

Never underestimate the power of slick marketing in America.

a reply to: amazing

Very well said. I was just thinking about this ticket the other day and how I'd vote for this ticket. I'd love to see it happen.

a reply to: amazing

I agree, Its all a show to divide. An illusion to keep us distracted as they continue to consolidate power for themselves.
Anyone who thinks there is a real difference between a Clinton or a Bush has been played. They play for the same team.

I used to listen to talk radio until about 2009. I cant stomach talk radio, or ANY televised news now.

Sometimes I will pause on cnn, fox and msnbc to see what the latest propaganda is. But even that I don't tolerate very well anymore.

To be honest I feel our political situation is hopeless and the only solution is a dramatic reset.

Until that happens, the ruling class, bipartisan control by both parties, will continue to exist to increase its power and control over us, the serfs.

There is a good article on this here. Americas Ruling Class

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

To: Stosh64


You nailed the cat to the wall with your first 2 sentences. They(the power mongers) have become so entrenched in the beltway soap opera, so confident that past sins will be forgotten, and so brazen in their acquisition of money and power that "for the good of the people" is at the bottom of their to-do list.

Meanwhile, as the right hand is shaking at the misdeeds and inadequacies of the opposing party, the left is either reaching in your wallet or performing damage control to their own transgressions. Division of the masses is is an added benefit, keeping the populace unbalanced.

Rinse, repeat.

a reply to: TonyS

lol, not rly. its a lost cause if you dont even try, lol.

a reply to: amazing



i don't think Rand wants anything to do with sanders after he bailed on the audit the fed bill his dad worked hard on and Bernie who back stabbed the american public and ron to get his presidential run. i bet if you follow the money you will find a PAC or lobbyist who was directly against the audit the fed bill supporting bernie sanders

originally posted by: freefall2020
a reply to: amazing

i don't think Rand wants anything to do with sanders after he bailed on the audit the fed bill his dad worked hard on and Bernie who back stabbed the american public and ron to get his presidential run. i bet if you follow the money you will find a PAC or lobbyist who was directly against the audit the fed bill supporting bernie sanders

But that doesn't tell us why. I need to know why he bailed and did he bail on that or was there some other language in the bill that he objected to. Politics is so convoluted. Still, who else is there? Rand Paul? Paul introduced a budget amendment that would add $76.5 billion to defense spending. So...does a libertarian really stand for bigger government...of that spending...I hope he tells us why we need over 700 military bases around the world for our defense, especially when we know that UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Israel, Spain, Italy and others have our back if we really need it or go to war.

So..as we see nobody is perfect. There are no perfect candidates...only those who are better than others.

a reply to: amazing

it was a bill about auditing the federal reserve! its plain and simple and every american wanted it to happen because there needs to be oversight on what happening with our money and where it goes if we ever plan on balancing the books some day . Bernie sanders helped with the bill then when it got to him he flipped flopped and watered it down so oversight of the federal reserve is worse.
F-$% nobody is perfect! What Bernie did is sell out the america public to cement a presidential bid which he will fail at! he doesn't speak the truth he acts like he will then flops on the issue when it benefits him personally. He's an idealistic pretender like obama just more extreme and more in the wrong direction. Whats really funny is Ron Paul is the only politician who's budget doesn't increase every year because he returns the money not used instead of spending it all. He also votes based off the constitution ie if the bill oversteps the constitution he votes no on it. Its actually really simple to be an honest politician it just hard to be a successful honest politician.