Bernie Sanders. Worse than Isis?

a reply to: crazyewok

You still avoid the point. His right to say it is not germane! Quit with the Constitution gambit avoiding the point.

One it's not factual. Two, it is a direct contradiction to the purpose of the Presidency. He can say it, and I'm grateful he did in the sense that exposure of his views will be his undoing...

Electing this twit could finish this nation.

Equally my right to rebut and place it in the cubby-hole that I see as appropriate. Your comments merely act as a validation of my point, thank you very much....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well dont vote for him then!


That's what it boils down too!

And if you had just started the thread titles "why I wont vote for sanders" I would likely not be mocking you right now!

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Oh really? No civil unrest in the U.K.? Really? Flat-lined industry is very stable, I agree and has the potential for growth...

Things are not perfect but far from a failure and doing a hell of a lot better than the U.S.A at the moment.
Blame Obama? Blame Bush? Blame the American people? I dont really care, but the UK has fast growing economy and soon to get rid of the deficit (unlike the USA which deficit is increasing!). No the UK is not a industrial powerhouse anymore as like you guys we should it to china, but doesn't change the fact our overall economy is a hell of a lot more healthy.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yea, the U.S. is too bloody big...as was your "Empire" that was what I was referring to. Not the shell that remains... Frankly, in that sense, you then agree that the ballooning Federalism is doomed to failure?

Never said it wasn't.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I never questioned his right to say what he did, his honesty is trumped by the stupidity of it. The implication of agenda is clear.

And so you vote against him.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
As further misuse of the Constitution, especially as we sit with as you say, 18 trillion in debt, then further debt via universal health care will improve the situation? Or rather a feel-good sugar-coated enticement for votes that empower more 'ism' agenda?

To be honest your entire federal government needs a spring clean. You have one of the most inefficient and cumbersomeness bureaucracy's out side the European union! I wouldn't add anymore social programs until your deficits sorted out and you government made at least semi competent.

a reply to: crazyewok

Or we could bring all our troops home, turn war money into people money, and wait to jump in on WW3 and rescue everybody. Again.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: crazyewok

Or we could bring all our troops home, turn war money into people money, and wait to jump in on WW3 and rescue everybody. Again.

Instead of going from one extreme or another why cant the USA just adopt a balanced foreign policy?

NorthwestTrucker, you are correct Mr Sander's is worse than ISIS.

ISIS a figure head for those that want war and the profits it brings, Mr Sander's position is to spend more on the needs of the people of the US of A rather than unnecessary wars. There for Sander's is a very real threat to the neocons that profit from war, so from the conservative point of view yes Mr Sanders is worse than ISIS.

Thank you for pointing this out for us!

a reply to: crazyewok

Because everyone has a different opinion of what that balance is. And where is the balance in continuous war on foreign soil? We get NOTHING in return for our blood and trillions. Bring them all home Bernie. Close our borders til ISIS is dead, Start our economy over with real american companies and jobs. Can't be done? Never thought a socialist would make it this far in a US presidential campaign either.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Instead of going from one extreme or another why cant the USA just adopt a balanced foreign policy?

Because we have two parties that have completely opposite opinions on everything. This causes our foreign policy to change wildly depending on who has control over the state department.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

As far as the needs of the people goes it's jobs that are needed, good paying ones. ( I agree we need out of the ME)

By the way, the left has been running things these last eight years or so. No differences I can see. There's the source of the wars...Gov'ts. always has been. Way, WAY back long before corporations...

What you miss/ignore is no Constitution equals no nation, no jobs or 'needs' taken care of for the people. Then again Alaska can re-look at joining Canada.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

A few talking points/buzz words and no facts at all, just the inference about the loss of our constitution, blah, blah. blah.

The constitution you refer to, is more of a tool of and for socialism than it is for capitalism, chrony capitalism or the oligarchy we now have.

I mean we the people is not capitalist or an oligarchy it is socialism, we the people!

Duh!!!!!!

My jury is still out on sanders. Though i admit some of his policies make me some what uncomfortable.....

And I agree with the op on the point he would likely destroy the USA as it stands today. He would destroy the system.

The question though is that a good thing?

The USA in DC has become rotten to its very foundation.

Maybe the whole systems needs burning to ground so the USA can rise like a phoenix stronger?

Maybe not and it would be catatrophic?

All i know is the USA is dying from the rot at its very core and continueing with the familiar route of brought and paid for politicians like bush and Clinton will destroy the USA anyway and with them it will be a long lingering death with no hope of revival as the politicians loot you and strip your freedoms away piece by piece.


Bettee to vote for a radical like either sanders or a libertarian if your on the right and get it over with.


Obviously your constitution and current model of government are unsatisfactory as you are in the state you are in now.

There are a few of nations on earth (uk included) that have been around a long long time and the current theme with them is the willingness to be flexible and adapt to the times. Thats the key of survival. Countrys that dont adapt die.

This thread is Derp. Same tactic used last election cycle by comparing obama to hitler.....over and over and over. Is this your best tactic? Pathetic attempt to discredit the man using classic fox news fear mongering. How about using facts or figures to try and argue why his policies wont work.

Just saw this on FB this morning, going to just leave it here for you all:

a reply to: crazyewok

Those are good points. I believe our constitution is sort of a special document. Once they inserted the words "freedom, rights, all men" it was bound to progress. For instance, women and freed black people getting the vote, even though the document does not explicitly say women. Our country seems to go through these periods of congressional insanity. IE the civil war. Democracy will always be tested.

Have you done some in depth research on Bernie? He has been in Washington 30yrs and has not destroyed the state he represents. They love him.

a reply to: MOMof3

I think your constitution is a good thing.

But it didnt prevent a civil war and in the last 30 years of America being sold out and flushed down the toilet.

The point the amendedments are called amendments are because they are meant to be amended so the USA can be flexible.

Things like the bill of rights are timeless. They should not be changed.

But other bits? Well maybe there needs to be a updateing to it can handle the modern problems of modern times?

a reply to: crazyewok

Yes, the past three decades the laborer has suffered many losses that was won in earlier century. A big loss was through the tax structure then spilled to benefits and wages. But, it is voters who vote these policy makers in and it is voters who can vote them out. But most are what we call one issue voters. Bernie could have the best economic plan but because he is for women's rights, the one issue voter will not see past that.

Well, of course there was a fight over the interpretation of states rights. Someone will always test democracy because we have the freedom to speech and ideas.

a reply to: MOMof3

I think that's the biggest issue with the constitution as it stands now.

The application of state rights
It's too ambiguous on the matter!

Hell you fought a civil war because it's not clear enough!

Even today to much political engery is wasted on the argument.

It's needs to be clarified in no uncertain terms on the power of the state and Feds.

Personal I think more decentralisation and more power to states would be the way to go as the USA is far to big for a centralised government.

But meh it's your country so it's up to you to choose. Just choose and get it over with.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Hmmm, a tool of and for socialism, maybe, yet, answer this question.

Without that Constitution, what do we have? Where is the accord between the states? How does this country continue to exist? It cannot.

If I am wrong on this, why is no one saying so? Why is no one saying how we would overcome that?

If I am that freaking stupid and delusional, please answer in what way! If, in all probability, I am not wrong, then I don't care who it is who pushes past any chance of recovery, I wish them ill.

I do not believe Sanders is one bit worse than any you could name. His is certainly no better. He is a career politician. Most of them are.

I did these threads based on this one critical point. The Constitution, no matter how abused, altered or manipulated, there is nothing to replace it, no likely chance of an accord between the states that preserves the Union. (maybe it shouldn't be).

I AM FLAT OUT SCARED FOR THIS COUNTRTY, and my daughter and my grandchildren and their future. Is no one else?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Can I ask you, what country would you feel comfortable living in if given a choice? Obviously, not any of the Nordic social democracy countries. So which one?

a reply to: crazyewok

As far as a balanced foreign policy goes, I believe it started going out of kilter after the Vietnam war. Much confusion, conflicting views. It's been out of balance ever since.

The U.S. moved from introversion into a gradual appeasement. The other side, via Reagan, swung it back in the other direction hugely.

Apparent success with the Soviet Union. This 'empowers' the strong military side and at the same time removes a major perceived threat by 'defeating' the Soviets. More conflicting views.

Fast forward the perception on the right is now similar to the end of the Carter Administration leading into Reagan. A mess 'out there' that requires some good old fashion 'strength'.

I lean in that direction, obviously, yet as you say balance somehow...(This is off the top and based on nothing but my opinion.)