Bernie Sanders is a nothing.

Socialist is fine with me, Marxist-socialist or Corporate-socialist not so much.
All depends on which "society" one is serving.
I think Bernie is on the right track for the most part even though I lean conservative most of the time.
Sanders is hardly a "do nothing'.
Many times he voted against nearly all of Congress on issues like the Invasion of Iraq and the PATRIOT ACT.
That speaks volumes for the character of the man.
His main weakness (if you can call it that) is purely visual in his somewhat meek appearance.
I say weakness only that many vote by looks alone which won't work to his favor unfortunately.

a reply to: Gryphon66

True, I initially labeled him as a Democrap. However. hes not a Democrap. Hes a self described socialist whos pro-abortion, anti-gun, voted for Obamacare etc.

a reply to: introvert

If you believe in restricted government, you may not be a socialist.

But I dont think it has to be one way or the other.

I'm with you on dismantling our global empire and domestic surveillance police state but that money shouldnt be railroaded into more government programs.

It should be returned to its rightful owners, the American tax slaves.

Like all most (if not all government programs), healthcare has suffered since the government got involved in the 60s.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I might argue that it is not so much "one good man/woman/whomever" that we're looking for ... but rather a sea-change in the environment.

I favor a Constitutional Amendment limiting all terms of national office to two consecutive, as well as establishing a national system of referendum, initiative and recall.

Either limit all campaigns to a set amount of contributions, or provide a set amount from the Treasury to candidates who qualify.

I'll make the proviso, that I'm more "democratic" than "republican" though, at least in the original sense.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Sounds like you shouldn't vote for Sanders then ... but that's no reason to sully ATS with errors and misrepresentations.

Aside from that, good on you! Go vote!

a reply to: gladtobehere

but that money shouldnt be railroaded into more government programs.

That is what makes me a socialist. I believe a properly-ran government can not only be efficient, but also provide basic needs for it's people to ensure the strength and security of it's nation.

We are only as strong as the weakest among us and we can use the collective wealth of our nation to endure people have at least the basic needs.

To me, the structure of the national government as outlined in the Constitution is clear: the government is to provide a national infrastructure and promote the general welfare of the American people.

There's even a handy list: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

I've never seen anything from Mr. Sanders that suggests that he's in favor of any more ... or any less .... than that.

originally posted by: beezzer
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.

If Obama calling the Constitution a charter of negative liberties that doesn't describe what the government should do on their behalf, why would people care if Bernie talks about it too? I predict more bobble-heading.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Gryphon66

I love that he claims to be the champion of the people but fly's a damn private 747 around the stadium, that he only half filled after boasting he would fill it all, in some sort of victory laps.


I can really relate to that!

But then again excessive wealth and power is not mutually exclusive.

Bill Gates and George Lucas have donated billions to charity yet they do not embrace the Kudos that is rightfully theirs-they simply gave. People like Trump don't understand that-they believe that their presence on this Earth is a gift in itself and they wonder why people detest them.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Perhaps.

But it does bring to the fore, what interpretation is the role of government?

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

(Barak Obama in 2001, in a radio interview in regard to a specific question.)

Obama quote

This is the same argument that many right-wingers make every day.

I do not believe that Mr. Obama intended that to be a general summation of his constitutional understanding, even then (2001).

I cannot say the same for many right-wingers.

Bernie Sanders has repeatedly demonstrated great regard for the entire Constitution ... so whatever Mr. Obama said 14 years ago ... I don't think it's relevant to what Mr. Sanders may do.

Granted, in my opinion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The biggest problem, as I see it, is regulation. Independent regulation.

But how is that even possible? if the highest echelon of society needs to have someone swiftly kick them in the ass to make sure the behave, then what happens when those doing the ass kicking needs a kick in the ass themselves?

The level of trust in our officials is dwindling for good reason.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

if the highest echelon of society needs to have someone swiftly kick them in the ass to make sure the behave, then what happens when those doing the ass kicking needs a kick in the ass themselves?

That is why you and I have 2nd amendment rights.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Gryphon66

The biggest problem, as I see it, is regulation. Independent regulation.

But how is that even possible? if the highest echelon of society needs to have someone swiftly kick them in the ass to make sure the behave, then what happens when those doing the ass kicking needs a kick in the ass themselves?

The level of trust in our officials is dwindling for good reason.

No disagreement here: "who watches the Watchers?"

Dare I quote Marx in this context? "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."


(ETA: Groucho, not Karl ... source)

a reply to: whyamIhere

Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009.

I do not want that helping the USofA .

Sanders a guy who tries to help the people - not help his party, or his wallet.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Sanders will change DC ? That's friggin laughable.

Trump 2016

You can get enough of Trump on reality TV. Please don't inflict him on the rest of us.

Oh wait...he got fired from reality TV, didn't he? Not to worry, he'll probably buy the network in revenge.

originally posted by: HammyCat
a reply to: whyamIhere

Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009.

I do not want that helping the USofA .

Sanders a guy who tries to help the people - not help his party, or his wallet.

That makes Trump an expert in handling the possible U.S. Government bankruptcy !!

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Hes a self described socialist whos pro-abortion, anti-gun, voted for Obamacare etc.

I take it you like / love being an American? Love you freedom?

You do not get to pick and choose what freedoms others can and can not have.

---

Pro - Choice, you can not make someone have a child because you think it is a sin.

Everyone has a right to Health Care

He's not anti-gun

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

He is, in fact, a self described Democratic Socialist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the junior United States Senator from Vermont and a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for President in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[3][4][5]

Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history. A self-described democratic socialist,[6][7][8][9] he favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those instituted by the Nordic countries.[10][11][12] He caucuses with the Democratic Party and has been the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee since January 2015.[13]

Born in Brooklyn, New York, Sanders attended Brooklyn College before transferring to and graduating from the University of Chicago, where he was a member of the Young People's Socialist League, and active in the Civil Rights Movement as a student protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.[14][15] In 1963, he participated in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

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.

Might help if you actually did some leg work here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

So here is my question on that. Say all needs are provided for. I am not talking about people unable to work but what about those refusing to do anything because what they need is provided for?

This isn't about a rich poor argument but you have your average person working, that work at some level will go to support the needs of others. At the same time you have a group of people who can also be doing the same, taking part in this shared responsibility but refuse. Health exams and all abled body are forced to work? Let it go until there comes a tipping point where those refusing to work is a growing number beyond what can be handled? Etc. Where does this lead?

This could obviously drift into corrupt business and government , etc but I am hoping the response can be about looking at two average people, one working. Adding to what's required to provide needs, and others who could but Don t. Just see many issues and a breaking point hitting

a reply to: projectvxn

From your quote and source:

Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history.

Your source validates his comment. Sanders is an independent but is running for president on the Democrat ticket.