Bernie Sanders announces plans for a new left party

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: DBCowboy

So are you for both smaller gov. and personal freedom? Or just smaller gov.???

With smaller government, you get more personal freedoms. It is the larger governments that enact the biggest controls.

Governments have to justify their existence. The bigger governments are, the more they have to justify its growth. So government creates conflict.


Have you ever seen a government solution to a problem that involved a smaller government footprint?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So how far do your beliefs go?

Myself I feel the need for anarchy, or the need for a fair government that creates equality.

Anything less and I demand total anarchy, let us all be as corrupt, not just the rich!

Well i suspect russia and other socialist countries will donate to this so they can influence american policy. Essentially making the US russia lite.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: DBCowboy

So are you for both smaller gov. and personal freedom? Or just smaller gov.???

Governments have to justify their existence.

And part of the problem is, the government investigates itself AND us.

If we had the ability to investigate the government like they have to investigate us, I think we might find that the government is a far bigger threat to us than we are to each other.

They'd have us believe otherwise because they are in a position to AND they can grab more money and power, that way. They have to 'fix' and control us. It's too convenient of a system to believe it's not being exploited.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Myself I feel the need for anarchy, or the need for a fair government that creates equality.

Anything less and I demand total anarchy, let us all be as corrupt, not just the rich!

I prefer the "Night Watchman" style, where a government only protects its citizens instead of governing their day to day affairs. Sure we'll get some corruption, income inequality, and many rich people will utilize their resources in nefarious ways, but also the opposite is true, and there will be philanthropy, job creation, innovation, and people who through their own doings make a life for themselves. If we limit freedoms through government reform in order to attack corruption, we'll also be limiting the benefits that such freedoms can lead to. It's like cutting off an arm in order to avoid carpal tunnel.

The rich aren't corrupt. Corrupt people are corrupt, and that spans the entire economic spectrum.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was about to post this. lol

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why is it that everyone is looking at different forms of government, but no one is looking at less government?

Given the record amounts of money going to parties and politicians, do you see the deep pocket corporations and banks looking for smaller government?

They want the freebie contracts, legislation favoring them and trade pacts with other nations and all that takes a big government to serve them.

Every time there is a new government department, that requires more office space, more employees, more databases, more servers, more IT contracts, more support staff. Naturally, the actual costs will be kept confidential in order to preserve the benefits to the taxpayer.

a reply to: TheTory

The nature of sociopaths is their attraction to power over others, our broken pay to play political system invigorates their interests and empowers their lusts. The least we can do is mandate money for the survival of the less aggressive and more passive members of our society.

Or just go back to Anarchy.

When the elite hoard they detract from our freedom to earn, how would you address this problem?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why is it that everyone is looking at different forms of government, but no one is looking at less government?

'Cause the government understands growth, and the facebookers don't


We don't need to worry, obummer will tell us where to poo when we can't pay our mortgages.

Bernie Sanders is a fool! Very stupid idea.

All he'll do is get more republicans elected and end up causing more grief for the people he claims to want to help.


He should follow the tea party and try to influence the Democratic Party


Bernie is stupid and egotistical and he’s letting his ego and anger lead him

originally posted by: atomish

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
I couldn't find another source for this, even bernies website

The author of the piece admits in the comments it is merely a thought exercise.

Not real news.

Eta: the comment

Louis Proyect May 21, 2016 at 4:00 pm
Ben, you should be aware that this is only a thought experiment. In fact the Green Party is the only left alternative to the Democratic Party today. But if by some miracle Sanders decided to implement such a strategy, I would strongly advise the Greens to become part of it and constitute its left wing.

Actually, what the author said about the Green Party is why I didn't believe the story. It just wouldn't make sense to form a new party when he could support a perfectly valid one that already shares most of his positions.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

No problem! It's certainly not an idea without merit or precedent but it wouldn't make much sense to announce something like that at this point when Bernie is still in contention for the Democratic nomination (bye bye superdelegates).

I've done some research into why third parties don't do well in American politics and I've been meaning to put together a thread about it but the upshot is basically that our election process from the ground up promotes a two-party system. You want to read up on Duverger's Law.

I've been wondering for some time if the Left couldn't benefit from a movement akin to the Right's Tea Party to push the Democrats to the Left. The genius lies in sidestepping the hurdles of starting a third party by organizing to promote a subset of candidates from within the major party with a common platform. We're well on our way there with Sanders now. The next steps would be to give the movement a name, create a platform and then organize to promote change from within.

Of course that's all much more difficult to achieve as a true grassroots effort rather than astroturfing with funding/logistical support of billionaires.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, I read the article. It says May 1, 2017.

I'm all for it, regardless.

Why, were you trying to trip up people who are Bernie supporters? Promoting GOP hawks or Hillary? Just doing the usual trouble-making?

This image here is not "hypothetical" - it is History....


Summer School Syllabus
Start there. ^ Really.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Good luck to Bernie in 2020, if there are Presidential elections then.

Or if there is a Bernie then. He ain't lookin so great.

I actually wouldn't mind Bernie that much if he would change a few things. First...he needs to learn math. Some of his ideas and their numbers just don't work. That or maybe he doesn't see all the far reaching ripples his ideas will cause. Second...he has got to lose this idea that people should get things in return for doing nothing but existing. What are we...pets? A person must have value and self-value, they must see themselves as successful and feel their life has meaning. They must experience pride and not have to rely upon others to make it through life.

Take that away from people, and the humanity will go with it. We will become fat leeches that suck on whatever "flavor of the day" is offering it's nectar. I'd rather be dead.

He should start it today, now.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

But you know Bernie isn't doing this.

The story is semi-satire.

Maybe it's a planted story from deep cover Tea Party operatives !!!

This would be fantastic news for the Republicans.

Any "new left" party will only siphon votes from the Democrats, ensuring more GOP victories.

If the GOP doesn't implode too, that is.

Something tells me their platform would be virtually indistinguishable from the 10 Key Values (or whatever they call it) of the Green Party.

They'd just have a little celebrity and a lot more money. But nothing new. More government. More control over our lives. More indignity.

a reply to: NthOther

If the GOP doesn't implode too, that is.

Perhaps you mean:
If the GOP "hadn't imploded too".



...right?
You all can deny it all you like.....





But it did.


There's no "if" about it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Now that is scary.

But it was only a matter of time. I'm real curious about this "New Left" party platform.

Dunno, but there will be a Hammer and Sickle involved in their logo...