Bernie Sanders To Launch Presidential Campaign

a reply to: greencmp

I voted for Gary Johnson last time, and I do really like the guy, like what he stands for but for me he doesn't hold a candle to Bernie... and Bernie does have some political and media capital. I just hope it's enough to get his foot in the door when it comes time to debate and air his platform.

a reply to: Kali74

I won't say that I like Sanders but, I have a lot more respect for an honestly stated advocation for full-on socialism than the thinly veiled euphemisms we constantly hear.

a reply to: greencmp

Yeah, when he pees on your head, he won't lie and tell you it's raining.

That being said, I won't discount him.

He's far better than Jeb or Hillary at this point.

a reply to: beezzer

Oh dear, you just evoked an image of a golden shower from the ice maiden.

Shame be upon you, cruel bunny.

a reply to: greencmp



All I'm saying on the subject.

originally posted by: Xeven
First gay VP. That's the plan.

I think you are confusing Barney Frank with Bernie Sanders.

Bad strategy, Senator Sanders is need in the Senate.

IMO Bernie Sanders is the best option in 2016 but I have my doubts that he'll win the primary over Hillary. She's got so much notoriety and way more donors and she's got a lot of people backing her. But as far as I know he's the only one who isn't sucking up to big money corporations.

Go Bernie!!

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67


In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

On just one point: The Trans Pacific Partnership (and it's mate the Atlantic Trade Agreement thingy)

Let's see some facts here:

Senator Sanders, who is an unapologetic democratic socialist, has staunchly spoken out against this secret trade deal that supercedes national and local sovereignty and makes secret private corporate tribunals the law of the signatories lands.

On the other hand, Senator Paul, your paragon of 'liberty' is in favor of the Trade deals, in fact has castigated President Obama for not passing the thing sooner.

Now as I see it, the ideal of "liberty" (local control) is backed by the socialist but not the libertarian.

So therefore you are not seeking 'liberty' but authoritarian corporate control of people's lives. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

I voted for Gary Johnson last time, and I do really like the guy, like what he stands for but for me he doesn't hold a candle to Bernie... and Bernie does have some political and media capital. I just hope it's enough to get his foot in the door when it comes time to debate and air his platform.

I really think that Bernie is running to make sure that real topics of concern (TPP, income inequality, full-employment, investment in infrasture, etc) to citizens are part of the public discourse during this interminable election cycle.

His is needed in the Senate, for his vote, his heart and his smarts. He'd be wasted in the excutive in all capacities other then advisory.

A possiblity I just heard today was that Alan Greyson might run. Now that, with the backing of the progressive/socialist leaning left could be viable.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67


In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

On just one point: The Trans Pacific Partnership (and it's mate the Atlantic Trade Agreement thingy)

Let's see some facts here:

Senator Sanders, who is an unapologetic democratic socialist, has staunchly spoken out against this secret trade deal that supercedes national and local sovereignty and makes secret private corporate tribunals the law of the signatories lands.

On the other hand, Senator Paul, your paragon of 'liberty' is in favor of the Trade deals, in fact has castigated President Obama for not passing the thing sooner.

Now as I see it, the ideal of "liberty" (local control) is backed by the socialist but not the libertarian.

So therefore you are not seeking 'liberty' but authoritarian corporate control of people's lives. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

I already knew he wasn't a libertarian but, that would pretty much remove all doubt. I actually thought that I have been uncharacteristically open to compromise on this topic, I certainly wouldn't have imagined that someone would think that I believed that Rand Paul was a "paragon" but, I do consider him to hold liberty in much greater regard than Sanders.

You should note that I am tentatively considering Scott Walker who is even further from my ideal as long as he promises to eradicate public sector unions.

I am not certain that our country can survive without banning public sector unions ASAP.

What are your thoughts on PSUs?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67


In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

On just one point: The Trans Pacific Partnership (and it's mate the Atlantic Trade Agreement thingy)

Let's see some facts here:

Senator Sanders, who is an unapologetic democratic socialist, has staunchly spoken out against this secret trade deal that supercedes national and local sovereignty and makes secret private corporate tribunals the law of the signatories lands.

On the other hand, Senator Paul, your paragon of 'liberty' is in favor of the Trade deals, in fact has castigated President Obama for not passing the thing sooner.

Now as I see it, the ideal of "liberty" (local control) is backed by the socialist but not the libertarian.

So therefore you are not seeking 'liberty' but authoritarian corporate control of people's lives. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

If Rand Paul is for NAFTA and its analogs like the TPP, I don't like him. I already knew he wasn't a libertarian but, that would pretty much remove all doubt. I actually thought that I have been uncharacteristically open to compromise on this topic, I certainly wouldn't have imagined that someone would think that I believed that Rand Paul was a "paragon" but, I do consider him to hold liberty in much greater regard than Sanders.

You should note that I am tentatively considering Scott Walker who is even further from my ideal as long as he promises to eradicate public sector unions.

I am not certain that our country can survive without banning public sector unions ASAP.

What are your thoughts on PSUs?

Your apparent definition of 'liberty' aludes me.

As for Public Sector Unions, as well as all collective bargaining units, I'm a life long proponent. Collective bargaining is the only mechanism that workers of all types and at most levels can stand against unjust labor policies whether instituted by private businesses or private business influenced governmental bodies.

Unions and collective bargaining are what made the USs one time vaste middle class possible and raised the bar for all workers.

With May 1st coming up - consider that our traditional means of being heard in the US by voting no longer has any effect on policy and the only manner to be heard is by collective means.

Unions of all kinds (including a massive consumer union) and collective bargaining with universal right to strike are the only means that the working class has to be heard.

Now can we get back to the subject of Bernie Sander's Quixotic run for President as a democrat.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67


In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

On just one point: The Trans Pacific Partnership (and it's mate the Atlantic Trade Agreement thingy)

Let's see some facts here:

Senator Sanders, who is an unapologetic democratic socialist, has staunchly spoken out against this secret trade deal that supercedes national and local sovereignty and makes secret private corporate tribunals the law of the signatories lands.

On the other hand, Senator Paul, your paragon of 'liberty' is in favor of the Trade deals, in fact has castigated President Obama for not passing the thing sooner.

Now as I see it, the ideal of "liberty" (local control) is backed by the socialist but not the libertarian.

So therefore you are not seeking 'liberty' but authoritarian corporate control of people's lives. That is Orwellian doublespeak.

If Rand Paul is for NAFTA and its analogs like the TPP, I don't like him. I already knew he wasn't a libertarian but, that would pretty much remove all doubt. I actually thought that I have been uncharacteristically open to compromise on this topic, I certainly wouldn't have imagined that someone would think that I believed that Rand Paul was a "paragon" but, I do consider him to hold liberty in much greater regard than Sanders.

You should note that I am tentatively considering Scott Walker who is even further from my ideal as long as he promises to eradicate public sector unions.

I am not certain that our country can survive without banning public sector unions ASAP.

What are your thoughts on PSUs?

Your apparent definition of 'liberty' aludes me.

As for Public Sector Unions, as well as all collective bargaining units, I'm a life long proponent. Collective bargaining is the only mechanism that workers of all types and at most levels can stand against unjust labor policies whether instituted by private businesses or private business influenced governmental bodies.

Unions and collective bargaining are what made the USs one time vaste middle class possible and raised the bar for all workers.

With May 1st coming up - consider that our traditional means of being heard in the US by voting no longer has any effect on policy and the only manner to be heard is by collective means.

Unions of all kinds (including a massive consumer union) and collective bargaining with universal right to strike are the only means that the working class has to be heard.

Now can we get back to the subject of Bernie Sander's Quixotic run for President as a democrat.

I had sort of pegged you as a new dealer so I thought you might benefit from some commentary from FDR on the subject.

Roosevelt's reign certainly was the bright dawn of modern unionism. The legal and administrative paths that led to 35% of the nation's workforce eventually unionizing by a mid-1950s peak were laid by Roosevelt.

But only for the private sector. Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

And if you're the kind of guy who capitalizes "government," woe betide such obstructionists.

Roosevelt wasn't alone. It was orthodoxy among Democrats through the '50s that unions didn't belong in government work. Things began changing when, in 1959, Wisconsin's then-Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed collective bargaining into law for state workers. Other states followed, and gradually, municipal workers and teachers were unionized, too.

FDR on public sector unions

If public sector unions could act responsibly there would be no problem. But, what it comes down to is you can't let a group of people hold government operations hostage. If it comes down to worker pay and worker right you can already get that just by the government jobs needing to be competitive with the private sector, just the same as industries seem to be healthiest when there's a mix of union and non union jobs to go around as both viewpoint are competing.

Public sector unions however lead to things like the police being untouchable, and it being virtually impossible to reform that practice.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67

I approve of having more ideological disparity between candidates so that Americans can vote based on policy instead of personality.

In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

Rand Paul is the bumper sticker of liberty not the real thing.

originally posted by: pirhanna

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: MagicWand67

I approve of having more ideological disparity between candidates so that Americans can vote based on policy instead of personality.

In a Sanders/Paul race the choice would be very simple, socialism or liberty.

Rand Paul is the bumper sticker of liberty not the real thing.

Yeah, I am already a little suspicious of him.

Surprisingly, it seems that a lot of people here are actually open to a real libertarian (Gary Johnson) so who knows what could happen this time?

originally posted by: Aazadan
If public sector unions could act responsibly there would be no problem. But, what it comes down to is you can't let a group of people hold government operations hostage. If it comes down to worker pay and worker right you can already get that just by the government jobs needing to be competitive with the private sector, just the same as industries seem to be healthiest when there's a mix of union and non union jobs to go around as both viewpoint are competing.

Public sector unions however lead to things like the police being untouchable, and it being virtually impossible to reform that practice.

Yes and while the police unions are horrific enough, the teacher's unions actually put them to shame and they have our children held hostage.

I personally think that if Sanders were to run with Warren they would take it all. However, since both are very outspoken about the obvious, and not so obvious, corruption, special interest lobbying, and outright lies from the Right, the smear campaign by the right will be like nothing we've seen before.

Bernie relies on simple facts, and they are the type of facts that the boys and girls at Fox run from, or simply lie about.

It'll be a dirty, nasty campaign by the Right against him. He'll make sure the public is well informed. The GOP won't like that.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Aazadan
If public sector unions could act responsibly there would be no problem. But, what it comes down to is you can't let a group of people hold government operations hostage. If it comes down to worker pay and worker right you can already get that just by the government jobs needing to be competitive with the private sector, just the same as industries seem to be healthiest when there's a mix of union and non union jobs to go around as both viewpoint are competing.

Public sector unions however lead to things like the police being untouchable, and it being virtually impossible to reform that practice.

Yes and while the police unions are horrific enough, the teacher's unions actually put them to shame and they have our children held hostage.

You think it's bad now? Bust the unions, pay teachers less than they are already being paid; pretend to pay them and they will pretend to teach.

Or if we really care about our young; offer the best and brightest teachers a good salary and watch the quality of education improve.

I quit education because I could make MUCH more money in the private sector and not work near as hard.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Aazadan
If public sector unions could act responsibly there would be no problem. But, what it comes down to is you can't let a group of people hold government operations hostage. If it comes down to worker pay and worker right you can already get that just by the government jobs needing to be competitive with the private sector, just the same as industries seem to be healthiest when there's a mix of union and non union jobs to go around as both viewpoint are competing.

Public sector unions however lead to things like the police being untouchable, and it being virtually impossible to reform that practice.

Yes and while the police unions are horrific enough, the teacher's unions actually put them to shame and they have our children held hostage.

You think it's bad now? Bust the unions, pay teachers less than they are already being paid; pretend to pay them and they will pretend to teach.

Or if we really care about our young; offer the best and brightest teachers a good salary and watch the quality of education improve.

I quit education because I could make MUCH more money in the private sector and not work near as hard.

Truly amazing.

You are actually saying (out loud) exactly what I predicted.

pretend to pay them and they will pretend to teach

To paraphrase, you have stated that teachers will not teach if they are not paid enough.

Case closed. Public sector unions must be banned in the USA.

Or if we really care about our young

See statement above.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If public sector unions could act responsibly there would be no problem. But, what it comes down to is you can't let a group of people hold government operations hostage. If it comes down to worker pay and worker right you can already get that just by the government jobs needing to be competitive with the private sector, just the same as industries seem to be healthiest when there's a mix of union and non union jobs to go around as both viewpoint are competing.

Public sector unions however lead to things like the police being untouchable, and it being virtually impossible to reform that practice.

And yet, repeatedly, we have watched the republican party hold government operations hostage or forced suspension of service.

And in response to this post and the above one from cmp....

Union members in essential job categories are more aware then most of the nature of their jobs and rarely would put citizens in danger. Their are very valid means for striking that do not hard (it may inconvenience) the public.

Did you know, I did, that FDR was elected and started his Presidential career as a pro-business, free market kind of dude. His opinion changed when he saw what worked and what didn't and morphed into the New Deal when free market solutions did not work. As for his stance on Public Employee Unions specifically, I don't know enough to comment. It may be an area that I disagree with him, as there are several.

You'll note that most Union employees are government workers - hence the push to disband public employee unions. Police, Fire fighters, Nurses, etc.

Do you really believe that disbanding this small bastion of Trade Unionism is really in your benefit? Ask yourself who benefits from union-busting?

I'm waiting to hear from all the McDonalds employees that have successfully negotiated a better deal for themselves? Where are the anecdotes?

Collective and coordinated action are the only voice WE THE PEOPLE have left. We don't have the money to buy politicians or media coverage.