Bernie Sanders is a nothing.

This lame duck, do nothing, career politician has been in Congress since 1990.

Hes a self-described "democratic socialist".

For some odd reason, hes now getting a lot of positive attention (especially on ATS) but I'm not sure why.

Sanders is a typical socialist who wants the government to confiscate more of my hard earned money so it can be redistributed in the form of illegitimate social programs like Obamacare.

He's flip-flopped on the 2nd Amendment mainly because the constituents in his home state are pro-2A, its the only way he could get their support to ensure a win.

He initially seemed like an ally with regards to the Pauls' Federal Reserve bill but he flaked on that too.

Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment.

I could go on but I think you guys get the point.

Dont get me wrong, if you support big government, anti-gun, socialist liberals, hes your man.

Speaking on behalf of everyone else, no thank you.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Or maybe he is democratic socialist who realizes sometimes it's better to get something done and go with the majority then hold a hard line that gets nothing done.

You understand democracy don't you? Only a majority vote gets anything done. And some audit of the Fed is better than no audit of the Fed.

Of course ending the Private scam called the Fed needs to be the real focus.

I do hope he clarifies his stance on gun control. I don't think reactionary gun control laws are in good taste. And his latest gun control statements do appear reactionary.

a reply to: gladtobehere

People seem to want change for the sake of change not always thinking of the overall pros and cons of said change. Not a problem for any particular political supporter but rather all of them

The two things I know are Sanders and trumps popularity show how Fed up people are becoming with the status quo. When the theatre is done and illusions have ended status quo is what they will get.

a reply to: gladtobehere

So who do you support?

He's an Independent, in fact, he is the longest-serving Independent in the Congress.

Not that I'm saying your entire post and thread is composed of utter nonsense, but you as you start off with either a lie or a glaring mistake in your second line ... I know where I'd bet if I had to.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Bravo, the more idiotic stuff like this I read about Bernie the more apt I am to vote for him

Oh what your feeling is called the Bern! Get used to it. A political revolution is coming and Bernie is leading the charge.

I'm perfectly happy for the government to be getting more of my money as long as it can be reasonably verified that my money is going to help less "fortunate" people than I. I'd rather pay 40 % taxes and know that most of it was feeding, clothing and sheltering people who need it, than pay 5% taxes and know that most of it was going to the military.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Sanders is honest. He doesn't talk freedom turns around and denies it. He'd be very happy with a more socialist government.

He's actually bringing a very important topic to the table.

How much should the government do?

Maybe his entering will actually create debate on the subject.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think what the op was getting at is that Sanders does the caucus thing with the Dems. He might not have a big D next to his name on a ballot but he does go and pow-wow with the folks who do. Guilt by association.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Dont get me wrong, if you support big government, socialist liberals, hes your man.

Speaking on behalf of everyone else, no thank you.

Why do you believe that us socialists believe in big government? Actually, we also believe in efficient, restricted government. The difference is where we apply the money that is needed to run government and provide services.

Is it better to spend billions, or trillions, on a massive security organization that does not make us more secure or wars that have taken millions of lives, or would it be better to lower taxes and spend some of that money on a universal healthcare system?

It's about priorities.

originally posted by: elliotmtl
I'm perfectly happy for the government to be getting more of my money as long as it can be reasonably verified that my money is going to help less "fortunate" people than I. I'd rather pay 40 % taxes and know that most of it was feeding, clothing and sheltering people who need it, than pay 5% taxes and know that most of it was going to the military.

Here's the cold hard truth that people to need to understand. The needy and poor do not fund campaigns, they do not fund the lobbyist that bribe or make campaign contributions for votes. They cannot set up high paying post political careers. They do not have access to inside information that benefit politicians etc. You could tax at 100% and I guarantee you there will still be poor, hungry and needy.

While that view maybe nice it is also very naive. The increased money would help those who help politicians, etc. A bone or two would be thrown to the needy for appearances but nothing solved. May want to rethink that taking an honest reality based look at how the system runs.

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think what the op was getting at is that Sanders does the caucus thing with the Dems. He might not have a big D next to his name on a ballot but he does go and pow-wow with the folks who do. Guilt by association.

That might be what OP was "getting at" but that wasn't what they stated.

They were setting up their argument for a posted thread. You were able to succinctly describe what you see as Sanders' position in a few lines ... do you think that is beyond the ability of the OP, or was there another agenda in mind.

For the record, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, but has deviated significantly from that bloc when he disagrees, e.g. Iraq war, PATRIOT act, etc.

Here's a record of Sanders' votes that's fairly easy to access: Bernie Sanders' voting record

I thought Bernie was an independent. So you don't like democraps, who do you support?

a reply to: gladtobehere

For some odd reason, hes now getting a lot of positive attention (especially on ATS) but I'm not sure why.

Could it be that other people is able to see that the unregulated capitalist system has all but destroyed this nation?

Sanders is a typical socialist who wants the government to confiscate more of my hard earned money so it can be redistributed in the form of illegitimate social programs like Obamacare.

The ACA is hardly a socialist program if it were then it wouldn't force people to buy insurance. If it were a single payer system then it would be socialist. Also the taxes we pay now are a joke compared to what we used to pay you know back when our nations economy was strong.

He's flip-flopped on the 2nd Amendment mainly because the constituents in his home state are pro-2A, its the only way he could get their support to ensure a win.

When has he flipped on the 2nd? He has always supported hunting guns but against assault type weapons.

Dont get me wrong, if you support big government, socialist liberals, hes your man.

Can he make it any bigger than the last Republican in office did? Ever hear of a little new department called homeland security?

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: elliotmtl
I'm perfectly happy for the government to be getting more of my money as long as it can be reasonably verified that my money is going to help less "fortunate" people than I. I'd rather pay 40 % taxes and know that most of it was feeding, clothing and sheltering people who need it, than pay 5% taxes and know that most of it was going to the military.

Here's the cold hard truth that people to need to understand. The needy and poor do not fund campaigns, they do not fund the lobbyist that bribe or make campaign contributions for votes. They cannot set up high paying post political careers. They do not have access to inside information that benefit politicians etc. You could tax at 100% and I guarantee you there will still be poor, hungry and needy.

While that view maybe nice it is also very naive. The increased money would help those who help politicians, etc. A bone or two would be thrown to the needy for appearances but nothing solved. May want to rethink that taking an honest reality based look at how the system runs.

If the war on poverty is ever won, then politicians who have no reason to take more of your money.

Politicians want poor, homeless, hungry people.

It's their "bread and butter".

a reply to: gladtobehere

Any politician that promotes change is not to be trusted.

Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Paul, Bush...It's the same old story. They want a change alright-a change that benefits them.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I honestly believe that Sanders is different. He's been in politics for quite some time and he is not wealthy or tied to corporate interests. He does work with the unions and that would lend credibility to his stance on workers issues.

I don't think there can be a "war on poverty" that is winnable.

"Poverty" is a condition relative to others who are "comfortable" or "rich."

I happen to be one of those folks who believe that We should provide every American with the basic necessities of life: shelter, food/water, medical care, etc. regardless of whether in our estimation they "deserve" it or whether they're "taking advantage" or whatnot.

At the same time, barring mental or physical impairment, I believe we should be empowering every American to find their own way, make their own living, to increase (rather than decrease) their standing in life. I can see that there is a balance between activity and laziness, but I choose to believe that given real opportunities, any of us would choose to be productive rather than merely sitting doing nothing.

... and none of that seems unreasonable to me, or, apparently, to Mr. Sanders, generally speaking.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: gladtobehere

Any politician that promotes change is not to be trusted.

Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Paul, Bush...It's the same old story. They want a change alright-a change that benefits them.

So you're in favor of things staying exactly as they are???

Interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

a reply to: buster2010


Can he make it any bigger than the last Republican in office did? Ever hear of a little new department called homeland security?


And that is the problem no matter which party set it up no party will ever tear it down. It has expanded the last 7 years. Government always grows, always needs more money, always needs new laws to solve problems. So depending on what part of goverment, one party may be responsible for its birth but both parties are responsible for its continued growth.

The best part is the true believers will identify something like dhs. Republicans are in the democrats blame them and hate it. Democrats get in republicans now blame the expansion but said nothing when it started. Its a never ending cycle. Rather amusing if not so sad. And the illusion continues to be bought and sold