|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 11, 2011 16:25:55 GMT -6
What do y'all think about him for President?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2011 18:35:33 GMT -6
He'd be my 1st choice.
He's previously stated he wouldn't run. But if Obama continues down his current path, who knows?
He could always change his mind.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 11, 2011 18:58:54 GMT -6
If he runs you better believe the bankers will have him photoshopped into a scene next to Bin Laden, or into a scene with an underaged prostitute. They'll MAKE something up about him.
|
|
|
Post by judes on Jul 11, 2011 19:24:53 GMT -6
I would most definitely vote for Bernie.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jul 11, 2011 20:13:16 GMT -6
Thom Hartmann has Fridays with Bernie, and I haven't yet disagreed with either one.
Too bad Bernie is so old; he would be excellent on Supreme Court.
GB
|
|
|
Post by judes on Jul 11, 2011 20:16:21 GMT -6
I like Bernie, he's better than any other choice I've seen so far, but even he, the only self proclaimed socialist, did sell out on the audit the FED initiative. So I guess everyone has their price hmmm?
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 11, 2011 21:28:14 GMT -6
I like Bernie, he's better than any other choice I've seen so far, but even he, the only self proclaimed socialist, did sell out on the audit the FED initiative. So I guess everyone has their price hmmm? Hmmmm, I wonder what his take was on that.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 11, 2011 22:22:20 GMT -6
Bernie would be a good choice, except that he'd have to run as a independent and face the wrath of both political parties and MSM in the run off.
Even if he was elected, Congress would turn on him. When Perot was running, members of Congress were asked if they'd work with him and to a one they said no.
He'd be walled up and could only do things via Executive orders and PDD's.
Instead remove the cancer in Congress - that being the members of both political parties. Strip the power of corporate American and special interests by removing them and replacing them with 3rd parties candidates.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 11, 2011 22:33:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 11, 2011 23:40:13 GMT -6
" Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007) Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998).... No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999) " Sounds like a true anti-globalist Populist to me.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 12, 2011 0:14:53 GMT -6
He's no Democrat and not a Repuke.
He's more like a FDR type Democrat that no longer exists.
He's about the only one who has consistently stood against globalization. You won't find a Republican giving a shit as they are unalloyed Fascists and supporters of the globalization. And Democrats are well... pretty much the same sans the window dressing on social issues.
The sad fact is, is that he's about the only one in Congress who really cares about our economy and the health of our middle-class.
His isolation on economic issues also calls into question the moral and intellectual competency of most voters given their history of repeatedly re-electing people who are the economic equivalent of child molesters and putting them in charge of a day care center.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jul 12, 2011 7:09:56 GMT -6
"child molesters and putting them in charge of a day care center"
Remember the Martin Pre-school child molester scandal of about 1980? After it closed, my late neighbor heard it was re-opening as "Friggem Young University."
GB Kinda' sorry for the OT here...
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 12, 2011 12:22:22 GMT -6
He's no Democrat and not a Repuke. He's more like a FDR type Democrat that no longer exists. Heck, he even compares to Theodore Roosevelt. Republicans would hate Teddy today.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 12, 2011 13:08:42 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike are seen by most Republicans today as "socialists". Neither could get elected to city council today.
Then again the average voter from Teddy's or even Ike's time would be horrified to see what war mongering fascists ordinary Republicans have turned into.
Today's average repuke has no issue with spending a trillion dollars on aircraft that are useless. They have no problem spending trillions on illegal wars. They have no problem with giving the ultra rich trillions. They have zero problem with supporting the PATRIOT Act and having a internal police force like the Stasi(DHS, TSA).
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2011 20:24:40 GMT -6
" Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007) Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998).... No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999) " Sounds like a true anti-globalist Populist to me. So. There's more to trade policy than voting on FTA's, like raising/lowering Tariffs. * Rated 33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002) And what use are jobs when your taxes are at 75% cause he votes yes on every socialist program you can imagine.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2011 20:25:38 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike are seen by most Republicans today as "socialists". Neither could get elected to city council today. Teddy and Ike didn't vote for funding abortion and gay marriage, discrimination against whites, taking away guns, TARP, voting yes on every spending program you can imagine except military (that part about military sounds distinctly anti IKE/TEDDY). I mean let's get cerial, geez.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2011 20:29:12 GMT -6
He's about the only one who has consistently stood against globalization. Globalization: Free Trade and Open Borders. Bernie Sanders is an Open Borders candidate, that half must have slipped your mind.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2011 20:30:11 GMT -6
Cerial, what's the point?
You get more pay, but the new taxes you pay negate that extra pay, what's the point again?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 12, 2011 21:11:29 GMT -6
www.ontheissues.org/senate/barack_obama.htmBarrack Obama: Wow, he's really going to put his foot down. Nooooo. You have to look specifically for a word called "Tariff", when the candidates campaign does the candidate specifically use the word "Tariff" in the context of RAISING THE TARIFF, and use it often. If not, then prepared to be taken for another ride like the suckers the American people are. Don't worry, the entertainment media will point to any pro-tariff candidate just like a compass always points north, cause they are seen to be very radical and entertaining: Trump, Buchanan, Perot.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 12, 2011 23:33:48 GMT -6
Cerial, what's the point? You get more pay, but the new taxes you pay negate that extra pay, what's the point again? You're kidding, right? Sanders doesn't support raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans, who are sending their money overseas in the first place to create jobs in China. He advocates increasing taxes on hedge fund managers and investors who are not increasing this nations wealth at all. Rather, they're extracting what wealth remains, and decreasing wealth production in the process. I'd tax the tax the uber-wealthy at over 75%, if it were up to me. Capital gains taxes would be 50%, not the 10 or 15% they currently are. You don't pay any tax on money you re-invest. You deduct that amount. You pay taxes on the money you make when you sell off your assets. It doesn't help the country in the slightest to make such sales easier. In fact, it hurts it tremendously when the sale of capital assets becomes more profitable through tax reductions. The rich can easily afford to pay more, and taxing them at higher rates doesn't reduce their investment in US industry or job creation in the slightest. The richest multinationals are spending all of their tax breaks on lobbying Congress for anti-labor legislation, more tax cuts, and to facilitate their ability to invest overseas and sell their products back into the US market.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jul 13, 2011 1:28:15 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike didn't vote for funding abortion and gay marriage, discrimination against whites, taking away guns, TARP, voting yes on every spending program you can imagine except military (that part about military sounds distinctly anti IKE/TEDDY).
You're joking right?
I love abortion and gay marriage issues. Most GOPers can't see these as the hot button wedge issues they are. GOPers go stupid and mean when they are brought up and forget about the fact that GOP is economically dismantling the country and wiping out the white middle-class.
But all the GOPtard can see is gays molesting him and women getting abortions. Even when the dumb shit loses his job to off-shoring, he doesn't make the connection between supporting a anti-labor, anti-American GOP politician and his job loss.
And your precious GOP is as anti-white as the Demos. The GOP is the first to support trade deals that are often UnConstitutional and pure poison to our workers - especially whites in the industrial and tech sectors where they form the majority. They refuse to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration and punish employers who hire them, they refuse to stop the importation of H1-B visa workers.
You can't honestly call the GOP pro-white at all when they support such a agenda. The fuckers are just as globalist as Bill Clinton and Obama are.
They're just better at playing the white voter than the Dems. The rank and file GOPers never get they are just porch monkeys or "useful idiots" as the commies like to call this sort of person.
And oh, Teddy and Ike would have never supported the illegal Iraq war and blowing $4 trillion dollars on it and Afghanistan during a time of economic hardship. And fighting 4 other LICs(Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya and Libya). And paying a trillion dollars on two useless fighter jets.
Neither would they have tolerated the GOP killing Glass-Stegall(which created the real-estate bubble and TARP) and promoting illegal and unConstitutional trade agreement.
Nor would they've supported the PATRIOT Act or something as monsterous as the TSA.
I could go on, but the GOP is pretty much a obscenity as it stands.
They make Sanders look like a saint.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 13, 2011 15:45:01 GMT -6
Cerial, what's the point? You get more pay, but the new taxes you pay negate that extra pay, what's the point again? You're kidding, right? Sanders doesn't support raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans, who are sending their money overseas in the first place to create jobs in China. He advocates increasing taxes on hedge fund managers and investors who are not increasing this nations wealth at all. Rather, they're extracting what wealth remains, and decreasing wealth production in the process. I'd tax the tax the uber-wealthy at over 75%, if it were up to me. Capital gains taxes would be 50%, not the 10 or 15% they currently are. You don't pay any tax on money you re-invest. You deduct that amount. You pay taxes on the money you make when you sell off your assets. It doesn't help the country in the slightest to make such sales easier. In fact, it hurts it tremendously when the sale of capital assets becomes more profitable through tax reductions. The rich can easily afford to pay more, and taxing them at higher rates doesn't reduce their investment in US industry or job creation in the slightest. The richest multinationals are spending all of their tax breaks on lobbying Congress for anti-labor legislation, more tax cuts, and to facilitate their ability to invest overseas and sell their products back into the US market. The Uber-wealthy would just wait it out. Even if Bernie Sanders were made Dictator for life so the top 1% couldn't wait it out, those taxes on the top 1% still wouldn't cover the current deficit+Bernie Sanders new spending. Top 1% owning 38% of wealth is the phrase tossed around but wealth=assets, not income, and these days most of those assets are on foreign soil meaning there is probably no jurisdiction to tax their assets (property). The only way to really tax their ass is with a Tariff, taxing the profits made off of their foreign assets, so unless Bernie Sander's is talking Tariffs then he's talking out of his ass.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 13, 2011 15:48:45 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike didn't vote for funding abortion and gay marriage, discrimination against whites, taking away guns, TARP, voting yes on every spending program you can imagine except military (that part about military sounds distinctly anti IKE/TEDDY).
You're joking right? I love abortion and gay marriage issues. Most GOPers can't see these as the hot button wedge issues they are. GOPers go stupid and mean when they are brought up and forget about the fact that GOP is economically dismantling the country and wiping out the white middle-class. But all the GOPtard can see is gays molesting him and women getting abortions. Even when the dumb shit loses his job to off-shoring, he doesn't make the connection between supporting a anti-labor, anti-American GOP politician and his job loss. And your precious GOP is as anti-white as the Demos. The GOP is the first to support trade deals that are often UnConstitutional and pure poison to our workers - especially whites in the industrial and tech sectors where they form the majority. They refuse to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration and punish employers who hire them, they refuse to stop the importation of H1-B visa workers. You can't honestly call the GOP pro-white at all when they support such a agenda. The fuckers are just as globalist as Bill Clinton and Obama are. They're just better at playing the white voter than the Dems. The rank and file GOPers never get they are just porch monkeys or "useful idiots" as the commies like to call this sort of person. And oh, Teddy and Ike would have never supported the illegal Iraq war and blowing $4 trillion dollars on it and Afghanistan during a time of economic hardship. And fighting 4 other LICs(Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya and Libya). And paying a trillion dollars on two useless fighter jets. Neither would they have tolerated the GOP killing Glass-Stegall(which created the real-estate bubble and TARP) and promoting illegal and unConstitutional trade agreement. Nor would they've supported the PATRIOT Act or something as monsterous as the TSA. I could go on, but the GOP is pretty much a obscenity as it stands. They make Sanders look like a saint. So you hate the GOP, so your solution is to vote Democrat. Well here you go: Just as long as you vote based on hatred, you'll always come out smelling like roses. And you must be joking about T Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Geez. Roosevelt personally commanded the expedition to invade Cuba, the avatar of aggressive foreign policy; and Eisenhower the Supreme Allied Commander in WW2. right.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 13, 2011 16:13:46 GMT -6
There is a difference between voting NO on Free Trade Agreements and wanting to bring the Tariff back, like Ron Paul and the link I have in my signature below every post I make:
Translation: Ron Paul would maintain ultra-low tariffs, and other trade barriers, eliminate them altogether while SIMULTANEOUSLY removing US from Free Trade Treaties. That would be a disaster.
"What does this have to do with Bernie Sanders?" Good question. Does Bernie Sanders specifically say he will raise Tariffs? No, in fact I can't find anything on the internet linking the keywords "Bernie Sanders" with "Tariff" except when dealing with Ethanol.
Bernie Sanders is a leftist version of Ron Paul, and they are all Globalists. Bernie Sanders WILL NOT raise Tariffs except on maybe a few small vote getting schemes for the idiot Greens or some few key industry constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 13, 2011 21:35:27 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike didn't vote for funding abortion and gay marriage, discrimination against whites, taking away guns, TARP, voting yes on every spending program you can imagine except military (that part about military sounds distinctly anti IKE/TEDDY).
You're joking right? I love abortion and gay marriage issues. Most GOPers can't see these as the hot button wedge issues they are. GOPers go stupid and mean when they are brought up and forget about the fact that GOP is economically dismantling the country and wiping out the white middle-class. Uh, and they're wiping out the middle class of other races, too.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 16, 2011 19:17:15 GMT -6
Teddy and Ike didn't vote for funding abortion and gay marriage, discrimination against whites, taking away guns, TARP, voting yes on every spending program you can imagine except military (that part about military sounds distinctly anti IKE/TEDDY).
You're joking right? I love abortion and gay marriage issues. Most GOPers can't see these as the hot button wedge issues they are. GOPers go stupid and mean when they are brought up and forget about the fact that GOP is economically dismantling the country and wiping out the white middle-class. Uh, and they're wiping out the middle class of other races, too. The left tries to prop up all non-white ethnicity's on the backs of whites, Free Trade could be considered one mechanism to achieve that; nobody said the left was trying to prop up the non-white ethnic American nationals.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 16, 2011 19:45:32 GMT -6
Uh, and they're wiping out the middle class of other races, too. The left tries to prop up all non-white ethnicity's on the backs of whites, Free Trade could be considered one mechanism to achieve that; nobody said the left was trying to prop up the non-white ethnic American nationals. I'm not seeing what you're getting at here, so I'll just stick to the facts given the established voting demographics. Given the well-established voting patterns of the violent blacks and Hispanics, if these groups left America or were exterminated tomorrow, the Republicans would have no opposition, the Democrats would become irrelevant. Social Security gets privatized, Medicare goes to vouchers, unions go away. Those are the facts. The blacks and Hispanic voters stand in the way of total Republican dominance. Really, why can't we all just find common ground and get the groups working together against the moneyed elite?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jul 17, 2011 16:01:15 GMT -6
The left tries to prop up all non-white ethnicity's on the backs of whites, Free Trade could be considered one mechanism to achieve that; nobody said the left was trying to prop up the non-white ethnic American nationals. I'm not seeing what you're getting at here, so I'll just stick to the facts given the established voting demographics. Given the well-established voting patterns of the violent blacks and Hispanics, if these groups left America or were exterminated tomorrow, the Republicans would have no opposition, the Democrats would become irrelevant. Social Security gets privatized, Medicare goes to vouchers, unions go away. Those are the facts. The blacks and Hispanic voters stand in the way of total Republican dominance. Really, why can't we all just find common ground and get the groups working together against the moneyed elite? I mean the left seems to be more concerned about the welfare of non-white foreign nationals than non-white America nationals. How many blacks lost their jobs to globalism?
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jul 18, 2011 22:01:47 GMT -6
I mean the left seems to be more concerned about the welfare of non-white foreign nationals than non-white America nationals. How many blacks lost their jobs to globalism? Well, really, take a look at this from a strategist's point of view. When it comes to who votes Democratic, you see that 90% of blacks vote Democrat and 60% of Hispanics (lowball estimate) vote Democratic. Over 50% of whites vote Republican. If you are any kind of strategist you pay serious attention to demographic groups that support you more than the other side. Think about it from a marketer's perspective, if you sell sports cars you aren't going to knock on doors or build a dealership or put ads in the neighborhoods with a lot of poor women. You're going to knock on doors, build dealerships and put up billboards in the areas where there's a lot of rich men. If you want to know what group opposes globalism and the screwing of the American worker you turn to the blacks and Hispanics more than anyone. That's the demographic combination that consistently votes against it. Oh and blacks are the ones who have taken the worst hits because of globalism, which answers your question. Going by percentages, your biggest allies against globalism are blacks, followed by Hispanics. Black, white, blue green or purple, I for one would rather make alliances with the group that opposes globalism by 60, 80 and 90% margins.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jul 19, 2011 0:21:34 GMT -6
It was interesting in the 2008 Repug convention. There wasn't a dark face to be seen anywhere in the audience.
|
|