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.

 

Bernie Sanders Platform. Dangerous...Failed...Rehashed...and NOT "Revolutionary"

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Maybe every single one of us should start talking about the ALL Candidates in terms of WHAT can be done, the end effect of it, and where their policies are at odds with the DATA.

I dunno anymore. Mantras and slogans and promises aren't cutting it.
edit on 14-2-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
Maybe every single one of us should start talking about the ALL Candidates in terms of WHAT can be done, the end effect of it, and where their policies are at odds with the DATA.

I dunno anymore. Mantras and slogans and promises aren't cutting it.


Good luck. You're expecting an educated, thoughtful debate on the issues with the current state of the electorate? You can't argue data with the people carrying torches and pitchforks.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I think I understand what you're saying. We should focus on what's attainable. Hillary is, essentially, running on Obama's third term. If you think the country is fine the way it is and should continue on the same path, Clinton is your candidate (according to her).

So, let's play the 'what if' game.

What if Clinton wins but the congress stays in the hands of the GOP? If Clinton wins but people either stay home or go out to specifically vote against her then we can expect more of the same. Obstruction, filibusters, potential government shutdowns, government operating under Executive Orders and few, if any, meaningful legislation being passed. We can swap power of the senate between the DNC and the GOP but the House is staying republican. The 2010 TEA Party wave ensured that on the state level.

OK, now what about Trump? Leading in all the polls, if he manages to win at the same rate his poll numbers show then we could assume that the Dem's would win back the senate and gain a few seats in the house. Trump has just enough support to win the primary's but he is widely disliked. So...people will come out to vote specifically against Trump but in this scenario, he still wins while losing congress.

What if we go with Sanders? The more polling that comes out, the more people like him. Bernie keeps mentioning his 'political revolution,' getting people out to vote. There's some evidence that if Bernie wins the nomination then he could sweep up the house and senate as well. Potentially, more people would come to vote for Sanders than against him.

Or course, who the opponent is matters. Trump v. Clinton? Clinton would probably win. She's the establishment candidate by leaps and bounds. She wins again and again. She would present a united Democratic front against whoever the GOP elects.

Is that more of what you're talking about?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




his bringing socialism to a corrupt oligarchy would result in communism just because of how corrupt our system is.


In my opinion I think you answered why Bernie wouldn't bring socialism.

I agree with you that with a corrupted gov't the last thing you would want is socialism. However, like you said we already have a corrupt oligarch. why would they take a step back towards socialism? Plus the president by himself wouldn't have the authority to implement socialism. Bernies presidency will likely be lameduck congress and presidency.

The Mega corps are raking in billions per quarter in profits , the system is working fine for them. they don't need or want socialism. They just want more draconian laws but both party want that and so do Rubio,Bush,Clinton,And trump.

edit on 42229America/ChicagoSun, 14 Feb 2016 20:42:51 -0600000000p2942 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The worst scenario above is Sander w/Democrats taking over the House and Senate. Then he would be free to destroy this country moving full speed ahead. Most of Obama's damage was done during his first two years before he was put in check, but Congress. Even worse is when you add in the newly minted Liberal leaning SCOTUS so you have DEM / DEM / DEM and unlimited destruction.

I like it when we have the branches being held by different parties. It minimizes the damage that either side can do and frankly I prefer gridlock to more Obamacare debacles.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Anyone/everyone in government would want socialism just because it would insure job security.

Now imagine a major corporation partnering with government to produce a product that the government would make mandatory to purchase.

That's how you'd get the socialists partnering with the global oligarchs.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   


How in the world, will a Democrat President..fighting a majority Republican Congress and nationwide Republican MAJORITY Governorship...pass all that LAW?


But yet you're terrified of him, so who's the dumb one exactly?

I'm voting for Bernie with the hope that he gets elected and is only able to pass a Wall Street tax and maybe a little bit of banking/corporate reform or regulation. Everything else would be blocked by the GOP house for the next 7 years. That would be fine in my book.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Still better than Hillary. Hitler would be a better option than her.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

It's because they're all spoon fed. No research, just repeat the talking points.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Ahhh, yes, the "lesser of two evils" line of thought. Gee whiz, why didn't I think of that!

Because it's totally insane! How 'bout none of the above, because that's the reality. NONE of any of these bozos is fit to hold the highest office in this land. Not one.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Anyone/everyone in government would want socialism just because it would insure job security.


They already have job security. Heck they quit congress when they die right now or reach 100, what more job security they want?





Now imagine a major corporation partnering with government to produce a product that the government would make mandatory to purchase.


They already do this, Obamacare and the bailouts.




That's how you'd get the socialists partnering with the global oligarchs.

We are way passed socialism.

We have an oligarch and going to a socialist gov't is downgrading. Right now certain Oligopolies fully control gov't and the system is benefiting them just fine. The discrepancy in income between the middleclass and the .01% is the highest its ever been so has CEO and board of directors salaries.

The system is already f#$#$ up beyond socialism, the next step up is full tyranny. Heck that may be where Trump comes in. If anyone has the character to go tyrant in this election its Trump hands down.

I'm not saying Sander is all that and a bag of chips but out of Cruz,Rubio,Bush,Trump,Clinton he is the only one that I see a slight chance of exposing the corruption in the DC and bring it to the forefront. The others I see no change what so ever. Trump doesn't handle criticism very well and with his ego could go full retard and ignore congress, the people, and go tyrant.

Between Bernie and Trump, I see bernie with the less risk having a lameduck congress and a slight chance of exposing the corruption. Trump I see making himself more rich and more powerful even above politician standards.

edit on 33229America/ChicagoSun, 14 Feb 2016 20:33:48 -0600000000p2942 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: tabularosa

What happens with his policies when the next president (who may not be as super awesome as the Beurn) gets in?


If his policies are as great as they sound, and I'm sure they will be, then America will make sure to vote in someone that thinks the same way.

After eight wonderful years of recovery under Sanders, there will not even be a desire for the nation to divide itself up into two waring parties of D or R.

We will just be one very happy nation with one great new plan.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

It'll be akin to FDR, the policies will be so wildly popular that no one will be willing to do away with them for the next 75 years.

At least, that's what I'm hoping for.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




I like it when we have the branches being held by different parties. It minimizes the damage that either side can do and frankly I prefer gridlock


The less they do the better we are for sure.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2

Ahhh, yes, the "lesser of two evils" line of thought. Gee whiz, why didn't I think of that!

Because it's totally insane! How 'bout none of the above, because that's the reality. NONE of any of these bozos is fit to hold the highest office in this land. Not one.


Right, because "None" is a choice now for president??? I didn't know that.

Well, heck if that's all it takes then why don't we just vote "None" for every position within Gov.???

Sarcasm aside. You do realize that "None of the Above" isn't an option right??? One of these people running will in fact be the next Pres. whether you like it or not. One of Two people will be what we'll be voting for as always. That's the whole meaning of "the lesser of two evils." Is it the best method?? No. But that is what we currently have so your point of voting for nobody is of no help at all.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

If you already agree that the system is ###ed up, then why in the hell would anyone in their right mind want to voluntarily give the system (government) more power, more of our money???



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: tabularosa

What happens with his policies when the next president (who may not be as super awesome as the Beurn) gets in?


If his policies are as great as they sound, and I'm sure they will be, then America will make sure to vote in someone that thinks the same way.

After eight wonderful years of recovery under Sanders, there will not even be a desire for the nation to divide itself up into two waring parties of D or R.

We will just be one very happy nation with one great new plan.


Just like Mao's 5 year plan?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

It minimizes damage but creates half-assed overly compromised ineffective policies as well. It forces policies meant to do one thing, but required to have little shady adders involved to get them passed.

The US a chaotic amalgamation of broken overly compromised, ineffective laws littered with sneaky little people raping adders.

We choose to limit "damage" because of fear of change and instead suffer a slow cancerous death.

We'll never know what policies can or will work cause we'll never have anything that's not half assed and broken.

Is like socialism, a true socialist state has never existed because there's been no self sufficient socialist countries. Every socialistic regime has required trade with capitalistic nations, which requires compromise with such nations, and allows for capitalism which wants socialism to fail to control prices and corrupt the socialist leaders with broken deals, agreements and demands.

Then again, no true capitalist system has ever existed either, because there's always been some level of socialism involved, because the populace have demands that must be met to avoid revolution, and without being forced capitalistic systems seem incapable of providing said needs without using them to exploit people.
edit on 2/14/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: interupt42

If you already agree that the system is ###ed up, then why in the hell would anyone in their right mind want to voluntarily give the system (government) more power, more of our money???


It's not an "all or nothing" situation. There are still many within government trying to do the right thing. The idea is to get those people in positions where they can fix the problem areas. Gov. isn't just going to disappear so you can either try to fix it or not. If you don't try then it will get even more corrupt for sure. Out of the options we have Sanders is the only person we trust. That doesn't mean he will fix it but he'll at least try. As for the rest of them, I wouldn't trust them to watch my dog for the weekend.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




If you already agree that the system is ###ed up, then why in the hell would anyone in their right mind want to voluntarily give the system (government) more power, more of our money???



I don't I think we need less gov;t and a libertarian govt especially now.

However party ideals mean nothing unless you get rid of corruption and the reality is that a libertarian candidate has 0 to no chance getting elected in this race.

The only options we have are Sanders, Rubio,Cruz,Hillary,and trump. Out of that pile of trash Sanders is actually talking about corruption.

You cant fix corruption until you make it an issue and it wont be an issue until someone starts talking about it at the presidential level.

Bernie is the only one out of that pile of crud that is speaking out. Even if he is not sincere about it , him bringing it to the forefront is better than what Rubio,Cruz,Hillary,and trump are likely to do. Which is keep the system the same (Oligarch) and keep the people focused on the symptoms of corruption so they keep chasing their tale and never make corruption issue number 1.

We get dealt a crappy hand and bringing corruption to the forefront is the best we can get out of this election.
edit on 11229America/ChicagoSun, 14 Feb 2016 21:11:37 -0600000000p2942 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join