In 180 Seconds You Will Be Voting For Bernie Sanders

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: MystikMushroom

One of Bernie's goals is to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics.

berniesanders.com...

That's only one small part of the problem. We need campaign finance reform, term limits, anti-corruption laws on the books.

These are all things that can be started at the local and state level. This is how things like interracial marriage, gay marriage, women's suffrage all started. You start at the bottom and work your way up. Large-scale reform like I've outlined won't be "permitted" from a top-down strategy.

If we are going to turn the ship around, it's going to have to start small with a million hands from steerage, not trying to storm the bridge itself.

Publically funded elections are great as far as they go and I'm in total agreement with it as a first step.

Then the problem of 'collective bargaining' has to be addressed, including 'PACs' and 'Unions' and "Professional Organization", etc. It is an important 'right' but limits need to be set on the definition. A personal PAC is not a 'collective' but a union or, argueably, a professional group is.

Perhaps an interesting thread?

originally posted by: yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Sanders may have the best of intentions. Maybe not. What I do believe is that anyone who sees the federal government as the answer and not the problem, is at best wrong, maybe delusional, and at worst the same type of criminal we've parked in the office for years. I'll cut him some slack and say he's just wrong.

I may not know what the answers are, but I'm pretty sure I know what they're not. Unfortunately change will be cosmetic only, as long as corporations are people and money is speech.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

We know what you are against, now, what do you see as an answer?

Corporate Rule? State Power? If the Federal Government isn't the answer - where is it to be found?

a reply to: freefall2020

Bernie sanders is a communist

NOPE!

Wrong.
That is all.

a reply to: FyreByrd
www.rawstory.com...
fff.org...
informationstation.org...
Some links I found that were a decent read. What I took out of them was that we are borrowing tax money that we haven't yet collected. Also the higher the debt the more we will end up paying for goods, higher interest rates. Debt done responsible isn't a bad thing, but our government is spending like drunken sailors. Our government doesn't no how to spend money.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If this "obstructionism" you talk about didn't happen, what would be different today.

Details are welcome with some examples.

Speculation and conspiracy theories are welcome too.

TIA.

We'll never know just as we will never know what could have happened if Henry Wallace had been FDRs Vice President (which was his intention, last minute political chicanery by party bosses saw Truman nominated and confirmed).

Have a point to make?

Here is a wiki about Social Democracy.

I wonder how close this describes Bernie?

Lots of variables including some Marx.

Social Democracy

a reply to: FyreByrd

Have a point to make?

well I kinda thought some "could'a beens" might apply to some of Bernie's plans.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Movingobject

Paul and Bernie are 180 degrees opposite of each other. The only thing they have in common is that they want to reform America.

One wants to give less power to the government and more to corporations, and the other wants to give more power to the government and less to corporations

Well, on the topic of 'reforming America', they are equal.

So - you prefer to give more power to corporations? Yikes.



Vote for Pedro.

As if giving more power to the government was any better?

Sadly the problem lies in the fact that both are so intertwined that either end of the political spectrum you shift to, you end up supporting something that doesn't have your best interests at heart.

a reply to: ugmold

While I agree with Bernie on some things, his overall approach is Socialism. There are no ifs, ands, or buts...about it. I refuse to live in his kind of economy. I wish people had his grasp of Corporatism and Fiat banking fraud, but he himself wants a Socialist Economy/Democracy Utopia when all is said and done.

His Presidency would expand a ground-up economy and would focus so much on "social justice" that only the poorest and the laziest would be rewarded withe our Bill of Rights...and then some. He's too much of an idealist and his pet ideal is failed policy.

That's who he is at the end of the day. No dice.

a reply to: freefall2020

are you serous? Bernie sanders is a communist who believes the government should provide everything for everyone's health care,free education ect

Bernie Sanders is not a communist, but it's unfortunate that he's not. We need more socialists and communists in government to accurately represent the people of this country.

Democrats and Republicans in this country represent a far right ideology in which corporations and big-money interests dictate what happens in the halls of government. There are very few people in office that actually say "what about the people", except those that are only paying lip-service to bring in votes. We need representation in government that will look at the needs of the people, not the campaign donation coming from corporation X.

It's frustrating to see people cower in fear over the word socialism and communism. I thought the Big Red Scare was over, but it appears some people are still susceptible to the lies and propaganda put out on tv and talk radio.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: amazing

Because carbon tax is (to me, obviously), a stupid idea. Climate change is real, has been happening for billions of years. Do I think humans have caused it? No.

I don't know. I'm still going with Majority Scientists and organizations. Meaning any candidate that actually is pro science get's a huge nod from me. Not to derail the thread but being pro science is a big deal to me. I don't like Carbon Taxes either though.

Can you explain how a 'carbon tax' would be insitituted? I hear a lot about how 'awful' it would be - by never why or how?

I really don't know anything about the Carbon Tax or Carbon Credits. I think it's more of a scare tactic by big oil companies. Some Left wing peeps talk about it and one thing I don't like about Sanders is that he seems willing to implement or raise taxes, but I think when you look at him overall, he is not a corporate lapdog like most other politicians and most of his platform is about helping middle and lowerclass families and people...and that's probably most of us on ATS.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Yeah, just how are you going about this 'vetting' process?

For one thing, I'm NOT listening to partisan crap from places like RAWSTORY or BRIETBART. (no difference between the two) I read what they officially really stand for at their own sites and don't listen to people who throw around inflammatory language like 'communist' or 'zionist'.

I fundamentally do not agree with Sanders. Nor do I agree with Warren, Clinton, Rubio, Huckabee, Santoro, Perry, Jindal, Pataki or Romney. I do not trust Clinton or Bush. I don't think that Rubio, Huckabee, or Santoro are up to being able to do the job. Perry's behavior has been, IMHO, rather unbalanced and the fact that Jindal supported him means that I can't support Jindal either.

I like much of what Walker wants economically, but of course not nearly all of what he says are things I can stomach. Rand Paul comes the closest to what direction I think the USA should be going in.

That's based on what they themselves have said and the sources are their own websites as well as taking as 'probably true' the information if both FOX (far right) and MSNBC (far left) report it and are in agreement.

This isn't rocket science.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
On what grounds?

I don't want him because I fundamentally disagree with him on the direction to take this country. Those that agree with him that his direction is best ... they should vote for him. Me? No.

Ugh, same old pie-in-the-sky bull#. Free college. Free health care. You seriously buy that it's "free"? You'll pay for it, quite handsomely. This guy doesn't have a chance.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think he very well knows that this 'fight' is an ongoing millenial battle.

He also knows the attention span and educational background of the people he needs to reach and hopefully inspire to begin the 'fight'.

He is doing more then running for President, and I believe he is very serious about the run, he is educating the corporatist indocrinated. Corporations, big business, big money, control nearly all aspects of education, formal and informal, in the USA and it is a dauting delusion needing light and clear vision.

I don't think he's naive in the least.

I'm glad to hear someone speak that way about the man!
What's his age? And even so I see the odds stacked 8 miles
high against Mr. Sanders ever reaching the White House.
And even if he did, he would just be escorted to a private
viewing of Kennedys assassination.

originally posted by: lindalinda
Ugh, same old pie-in-the-sky bull#. Free college. Free health care. You seriously buy that it's "free"? You'll pay for it, quite handsomely. This guy doesn't have a chance.

So are people just not aware that there are successful, prosperous, and happy countries on Earth where things like health care and education are free? It's not pie-in-the-sky. The CEOs that run our country want us all to believe that though, because it cuts into their profits.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That's based on what they themselves have said and the sources are their own websites

So - did you look at Walker's voting record, and also Sanders' voting record? (as sourced by Momof3?)
The actual voting facts???

For crying out loud - ALEX JONES, and ICKE, and GLENN BECK - every one of them has "his own website." Do you for one instant think that any of them are the ones pushing out all that propaganda?????




Are they the ones keeping their sites up and running? Writing the articles? Doing the legwork????

No. They ALL have an entire fleet of managers and handlers who TELL THEM what to do and say (and I would not at all be surprised to learn that Fox News is behind it somewhere...or Murdoch, or the Koch Bros, or ....). Those websites are ALL commercial sites.

So - how far does your 'vetting' go beyond MSM outlets and 'alternative' sites that promote only one line?

RightWingWatch? (They are very left-wing)
Alternet?(I know you despise them, too)
The Huffington Post? (again, I know you despise them)
NPR? (I know, I know - they're too liberal for you)

WHO is it you are trusting to give you sound facts, numbers, and current events?

I do the same thing - I choose who I am going to listen to, and to whom I will pay attention. ----- in this case, I'm doing my best at going with a balance of input and feedback. Actually legislative records of voting, not just accusations of 'COMMIE!' - careful thought about the conundrum that faces the USA right now, and the various options on offer (or possibly, whether 'on offer' or not).

Nevertheless, so far I am VERY MUCH on board with Sanders.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So - did you look at Walker's voting record, and also Sanders' voting record?

Yep.

Glenn Beck has "his own website." Do you for one instant think that he's the one keeping that site up and running?

I have no idea why you brought up Glenn Beck.
What's he got to do with what I said?

So - how far does your 'vetting' go beyond MSM outlets?

Did you read what I said? I said I go and read, from the people themselves what they officially state as their stand on issues. Then I research to see if those issues are feasible.

I already stated that, based on what the people themselves say, I can dismiss the vast majority of them from being able to get my vote. I fundamentally disagree with Sanders.

And as I said - I also do not agree with Warren, Clinton, Rubio, Huckabee, Santoro, Perry, Jindal, Pataki or Romney. I do not trust Clinton or Bush. I don't think that Rubio, Huckabee, or Santoro are up to being able to do the job. That's all based on what the candidates themselves have said and it's NOT based on crap like RAWSTORY or GLENNBECK or BRIETBART etc.

If YOU agree with the direction he wants to go in, then by all means vote for him. I do not want to go in that direction. So I will not vote for him. It's very simple.

I think religious insanity is going to get into the white house in 2016 - and take over this country and lead to some serious BS. I'm a bit cynical though so... I'd like to be surprised for once before the dark ages version two.

a reply to: FlyersFan

If YOU agree with the direction he wants to go in, then by all means vote for him. I do not want to go in that direction. So I will not vote for him. It's very simple.

All right, then.
I've only been listening to his speeches on video, and reading his public record as to how he votes.
Ron Paul had/has a "website", too - which he currently has nothing to do with, as far as I can tell. It's not his "official" website, it's more of a commercial enterprise that is riding his coattails. If that is inaccurate, can you please show me otherwise?

Anyway - okay......we part ways often, but ---
I still think Pope Francis is great.
At least we can agree on some things.