It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanders for President? Progressives call on Sanders to run for president as a Democrat

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
While I find the idea that Sanders could run on the Democratic ticket intriguing. I find it hard to believe TPTB would toss Hilary under the bus, where she belongs, imho. Oh please don't run Hilary, she (a corporate politician) is not what our country needs.


What about Clinton, the favorite of the Democratic establishment? “Where do we start?” Carpenter responded, before ticking off a list of the former senator and secretary of state’s non-progressive positions over the years, including her vote for the war in Iraq (“one thing many of us can’t overlook”), her support of damaging trade policies (“NAFTA is the Clinton legacy”), and her abandonment of a single-payer option after her failed efforts at healthcare reform during her husband’s presidency.



It would be a mistake for Sanders to run as an Independent, continued Carpenter, pointing to the cautionary tale of Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign as the Green Party’s candidate—a campaign, many contend, that handed the election to George W. Bush by drawing votes away from Al Gore. (Nader supporters have steadfastly dismissed that claim, suggesting, among other things, that the fault lay with the Democrats for not running a candidate that progressive voters could rally behind.)


source

Hope???
edit on 26-3-2014 by AlaskanDad because: typo




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
There was a great thread a few weeks ago that linked to an interview with Sanders. He discussed that he is trying to figure out if and how he would run. I dont think that TPTB would ever let him in office. He doesn't play nice with the 1% or corporations and banks.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlaskanDad
 


Right now? They are as confused as we are! Don't kid yourself that they are aware that the two party system and it's tactics to control by division is coming to light in a big way!

What we have to watch out for is "Them" hijacking any kind of candidate OR "PLACING" that kind of candidate to retain their authority over us "farm animals"!

Just because they are cocky, doesn't mean we can't put the fear of God in them! (you can replace God with whatever name you choose)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Hope? Sorry, I wish I had some. For me, gone are the days where I believe one candidate can step in and really change government for the better. In my opinion, we'll never see that day unless we can eliminate the lobbyists and enact meaningful campaign finance reform- i.e. keep Wall Street on Wall Street and leave government to Washington.

Until then, we'll just see the office of President as another cog in the machine: swapped out every 4-8 years with no real effect on the system. Then again, maybe my perspective has been tainted by the poor leadership of the Obama and Bush administrations - arguably the two worst presidents in modern U.S. history.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I'll vote for Coronal Sanders. KFC is worth my vote. As long as you don't eat too much
edit on 26-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Bernie Sanders? "Democratic" Socialist? Oh, I hope he DOES run--as an Independent--in the General Election. That would be just delightful! Peachy! Hopefully he will do better than Ralph Nader and actually take some Electoral votes away from the Democrats. I can't think of a better scenario. Go, Bernie!



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 


There has been rumors that Elizabeth Warren may run as sanders VP. Now that would be interesting because if something was to happen to Sanders then Warren would be president, she has been tougher on the 1% than Sanders. l



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
When Bernie Sanders made this speech he signed his death warrant when it comes to getting the nod to run for president. Also people will cry that he will make this country socialist.




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with having a 1%, there is a 1% of everything. The problem isn't that people are successful, it is that our government is so prone to corruption, bribes, lobbying, favors, quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it...that corporations like Monsato, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs have their tentacles all up the deepest and darkest corners of the government. When the banks fail, they get bailed out (and the Democrats like it, many Republicans liked it too) and hurt the middle and lower class but then we continue to complain about the "1%".

Stop attacking the 1%, direct your attention where it NEEDS to be, not where they're guiding you to be.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Not the worst choice.

Love me some democratic socialists to shake things up.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

eLPresidente
There is nothing wrong with having a 1%, there is a 1% of everything. The problem isn't that people are successful, it is that our government is so prone to corruption, bribes, lobbying, favors, quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it...that corporations like Monsato, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs have their tentacles all up the deepest and darkest corners of the government. When the banks fail, they get bailed out (and the Democrats like it, many Republicans liked it too) and hurt the middle and lower class but then we continue to complain about the "1%".

Stop attacking the 1%, direct your attention where it NEEDS to be, not where they're guiding you to be.


Who do you think owns corporations like Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs? Who do you think is buying politicians so that they will bail out banks and Wall Street? The 1% that's who. The 1% profits when the majority of this countries population suffers so people should complain about the 1%. To do otherwise is just ignorance.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

buster2010

eLPresidente
There is nothing wrong with having a 1%, there is a 1% of everything. The problem isn't that people are successful, it is that our government is so prone to corruption, bribes, lobbying, favors, quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it...that corporations like Monsato, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs have their tentacles all up the deepest and darkest corners of the government. When the banks fail, they get bailed out (and the Democrats like it, many Republicans liked it too) and hurt the middle and lower class but then we continue to complain about the "1%".

Stop attacking the 1%, direct your attention where it NEEDS to be, not where they're guiding you to be.


Who do you think owns corporations like Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs? Who do you think is buying politicians so that they will bail out banks and Wall Street? The 1% that's who. The 1% profits when the majority of this countries population suffers so people should complain about the 1%. To do otherwise is just ignorance.



So because you say that the private sector is to blame (and obviously not the public, this is my assumption since you are completely leaving government intervention out of your blame game), the solution is to make the 1% poorer? Seriously? The government is NOT supposed to be allowing this type of behavior and it is supposed to be up to YOU the PEOPLE to hold them accountable but instead you are attacking the private sector. You have elected officials TAKING bribes and MAKING friends that cause them to legislative against what they are supposed to be doing. Hell, Obama openly appoints major donors as Ambassadors but nobody is making a fuss, instead, "we must attack the 1% because they are too rich". This is the same type of silly reasoning that we must make NEW gun laws rather than just enforce the laws already on the books.

Getting the government out of the private sector and vice versa isn't even being enforced yet you want to go straight after the pockets of the 1%. Taxing the rich to the point where there is no longer any motivation to risk and grow and succeed will leave us with even less jobs than we currently DON'T have.

People like Elon Musk and Larry Ellison are pouring millions upon millions of investment dollars into private businesses and projects that do good and create jobs, of course in their private life they must be enjoying some of that hard earned cash (I know Ellison does with his ultra-yachts and mega-mansions) but at the same time he has purchased an island in Hawaii with extremely high unemployment rates and a dwindling economy and is investing big bucks to make the island a tourist attraction while making it energy and economically sustainable again. Within the rich exists people like that, should they be taxed too?






edit on 26-3-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

The private sector as it's evolving is to blame.

Most of these corporations that have been declared persons are persons with absofreakinglutely no loyalty, no heart, and no allegiance, in the name of their stockholders and many time cooking the books to make them look better or outright stealing from those they held longstanding contracts with, and no one could do a thing about it because they own the politicians' asses. They used us, bled us dry, sent us to wars we didn't need to be in, and abandoned us and are now moving on to other nations to do the same to while leaving us in the dirt with our eroded tax bases because they took the jobs of our taxpayers and don't pay their own share of taxes.

It's scary that some don't see this, typically those still thinking their dream has a chance in hell against these creative accountants and this flat out criminality.


edit on 3/26/2014 by ~Lucidity because: spelling



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
As much as I like him, it just will never happen. He challenges all of the established power brokers.

Plus, in the shallow, superficial world of 2014, he is simply too old and not photogenic enough to capture the hearts and minds of a pop culture electorate. A sad reality.
edit on 3/26/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

eLPresidente

buster2010

eLPresidente
There is nothing wrong with having a 1%, there is a 1% of everything. The problem isn't that people are successful, it is that our government is so prone to corruption, bribes, lobbying, favors, quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it...that corporations like Monsato, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs have their tentacles all up the deepest and darkest corners of the government. When the banks fail, they get bailed out (and the Democrats like it, many Republicans liked it too) and hurt the middle and lower class but then we continue to complain about the "1%".

Stop attacking the 1%, direct your attention where it NEEDS to be, not where they're guiding you to be.


Who do you think owns corporations like Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs? Who do you think is buying politicians so that they will bail out banks and Wall Street? The 1% that's who. The 1% profits when the majority of this countries population suffers so people should complain about the 1%. To do otherwise is just ignorance.



So because you say that the private sector is to blame (and obviously not the public, this is my assumption since you are completely leaving government intervention out of your blame game), the solution is to make the 1% poorer? Seriously? The government is NOT supposed to be allowing this type of behavior and it is supposed to be up to YOU the PEOPLE to hold them accountable but instead you are attacking the private sector. You have elected officials TAKING bribes and MAKING friends that cause them to legislative against what they are supposed to be doing. Hell, Obama openly appoints major donors as Ambassadors but nobody is making a fuss, instead, "we must attack the 1% because they are too rich". This is the same type of silly reasoning that we must make NEW gun laws rather than just enforce the laws already on the books.

Getting the government out of the private sector and vice versa isn't even being enforced yet you want to go straight after the pockets of the 1%. Taxing the rich to the point where there is no longer any motivation to risk and grow and succeed will leave us with even less jobs than we currently DON'T have.

People like Elon Musk and Larry Ellison are pouring millions upon millions of investment dollars into private businesses and projects that do good and create jobs, of course in their private life they must be enjoying some of that hard earned cash (I know Ellison does with his ultra-yachts and mega-mansions) but at the same time he has purchased an island in Hawaii with extremely high unemployment rates and a dwindling economy and is investing big bucks to make the island a tourist attraction while making it energy and economically sustainable again. Within the rich exists people like that, should they be taxed too?

edit on 26-3-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2014 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


Everyone should be taxed equally in this country we should have a flat tax regardless of income or how you make your money. Are you saying just because they created some jobs they shouldn't be taxed? And you should look at who the major contributors to the politicians you complain about because if it wasn't for the 1% they wouldn't be in office. This is why these pacs and super pacs where they can pump as much money as they want into an election anonymously should be done away with.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


At least they'll be somewhat accurate with the label this time. They'll never understand the concept though.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

buster2010


Who do you think owns corporations like Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs? Who do you think is buying politicians so that they will bail out banks and Wall Street? The 1% that's who. The 1% profits when the majority of this countries population suffers so people should complain about the 1%. To do otherwise is just ignorance.


Oh, that makes perfect sense. The "1%" benefits when they make people suffer. Because we all know that people who are suffering will never wonder who's making them suffer. Do you really believe you would even know who's responsible if they didn't want you to?



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by buster2010
 


At least they'll be somewhat accurate with the label this time. They'll never understand the concept though.


The *real* question is.....

Does Sanders understand the "concept" ?

Does he have a "plan" to implement the "concept" ?




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

AlaskanDad
Hope???

Hope would be an honest and capable candidate that doesn't have a (D) or (R) after his or her name.

edit on 3/28/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9

log in

join