Care to flesh that out and explain what you are trying to say?
How " 12 point plan to move America forward " is actually a 12 point plan to destroy whats left of our economy.
Tax Increases, " stimulus to increase aggregate demand " and cost increases on Corporations.
It would be a disaster and not just for us
So you and I would be one of the former.
Now. If he' so independent instead of a liberal democrat with self-affirming delusions, what issues does he vote with the Republican Party on?
"Socialistic libertarian"? You're kidding, right? Is that like dry water? :roll:
Sanders is revered by The Communist Party USA. Nuff said.
I'm in the latter as I don't divide things into two groups
AliHajiSheik said:There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide things into two groups, and those who don't
Voting does not determine party membership,
He doesn't oppose the Democratic ideas. He doesn't fight them. He blindly votes with them almost 100% of the time. He runs in his own state as something other than a Democrat because that flies in Vermont. He is a Democrat.
:doh
Votes with Democrats
Caucuses with Democrats
Committee Memberships count against Democrats
Running for nomination of Democrat Party for President.
It's a Democrat.
I don't think Bernie does anything blindly. I think he is very thoughtful in his ideas an opinions. I don't agree with most of them, but he is Independent. The fact that he gets perks by caucusing with the Democrats in Congress and he is more aligned with them on many issues--likely issues you disagree with, does not make him a Democrat. Your 100% figure is your own exaggeration--or do you have some proof?
Clearly the humor of two groups was lost on you. Sorry.
He votes often with Democrats.
Not sure what caucus impact he has as they are private meetings. They could just as easily exclude him and not let him in.
What does committee membership counting against Democrats mean?
Even his supporters acknowledge that him running as a Democrat is a means to an end.
Please alert me when he changes his party affiliation changes. We both know it isn't happening.
Bernie is not lying, he caucuses with the Democrats, but since he feels the Democrats have lost their way he chooses not to be a registered Democrat.
Bernie is in this race to force the Democrat presidential contenders to discuss the issues he wants them to talk about. If he was an independant he would not be in the Democratic debates and would not be able to do it.
He knows damned well he has no chance of winning.
Clearly the humor of two groups was lost on you. Sorry.
He votes often with Democrats.
Not sure what caucus impact he has as they are private meetings.
They could just as easily exclude him and not let him in
What does committee membership counting against Democrats mean?
Even his supporters acknowledge that him running as a Democrat is a means to an end.
Not so fast there:"Socialistic libertarian"? You're kidding, right? Is that like dry water? :roll:
Sanders is revered by The Communist Party USA. Nuff said.
Are you a business owner with employees? (serious question)Well that's not the kind of answer I was looking for, but I can see you are Brownback/Walker kind of guy.
That is possible, also similar to what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.The scenario I see playing out is this:
Bernie gets a substantial turn out in the primaries but still falls a bit short of Hilary who gets the party nomination.
Bernie then assumes that he can do on a national level what he did in Vermont based on his surprising appeal in the primaries. Sanders decides to run as an Independent in the general election just as he does in Vermont, effectively Ross Perot-ing Hilary's presidential bid.
Very good (and practical) point!Beg to differ all you want, but he knows something you apparently haven't thought about. After running in the primaries and losing as a Democrat, he wouldn't be registered in enough, if any at all, states to win the generall election as an independent. Ross Perot ran as an independent from the beginning to the end.
That is possible, also similar to what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.
But I don't really see it - I think Sen. Sanders would see the losing result of a fractured party, and would fall inline with the Dems.
Somehow I don't see him as a VP running-mate, either. (I think she'll pick an "attack-dog" "hatchet man")
A disaster in your opinion & from your point of view.How " 12 point plan to move America forward " is actually a 12 point plan to destroy whats left of our economy.
Tax Increases, " stimulus to increase aggregate demand " and cost increases on Corporations.
It would be a disaster and not just for us
Do YOU have a business with employees?A disaster in your opinion & from your point of view.
But, some others of us see three-decades of (supposed) 'trickle-down economics', and are still waiting to see the results we've been promised!
Is there a point you'd like to make, without excessive drama?Do YOU have a business with employees?
Its a simple question. You are the only one injecting drama. I asked a simple question.Is there a point you'd like to make, without excessive drama?
A disaster in your opinion & from your point of view.
But, some others of us see three-decades of (supposed) 'trickle-down economics', and are still waiting to see the results we've been promised!
:doh
Votes with Democrats
Caucuses with Democrats
Committee Memberships count against Democrats
Running for nomination of Democrat Party for President.
It's a Democrat.
Not so fast there:
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production[6] within a more general criticism of the state form itself[7][8] as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace.[9] Instead it emphasizes workers' self management of the workplace[10] and decentralized structures of political government[11] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[12] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations[13] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[14][15] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[16] and voluntary human relationships[17] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]"
Source: Wikipedia - 'Libertarian Socialism'
As an aside, even though the Wiki 'Libertarian Socialism' article references 'Left Libertarianism' (something with some facets I'm fond of), there are differences - but fundamentally:
"Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice."
Source: Wikipedia - 'Left-Libertarianism'
In this country, 'Libertarianism' is most often associated with 'Right Libertarianism', which weighs more heavily on unfettered free-market capitalism and the unequal accumulation of wealth (as one would expect in a country with a heavily corporate & affluent individual influenced political process).
Both forms of Libertarians are anti-statists, they just differ on how to control capital & production (that's a big-deal.)
But elementally, individuals & philosophies can't always be defined by neat little pigeon holes (though our politicians and their political parties would like you to believe that, as they try to get us to tear each other apart for their benefit!)
I would be inclined to agree with you, if you could cite examples from Sen. Sander's plan supporting the degree of intervention you describe above - I have not seen Sen. Sanders call for raising the federal income tax to 75%, for instance.No, not my opinion at all.
Sanders " fairness and equality " iniatives have been tried to varying degrees all over the world and with expected results.
When Francis Hollande raised rates on the " Rich " to 75 percent did it fix disparity ?
Or make disparity worse ? It made it worse.
When Japan blew through 10 different Stimulus packages totaling 100 Trillion Yen did it fix their economy ?
No it didn't. It just exploded their debt and led to nearly 3 decades of stagnationn.
If I asked my 7 year old cousin how would SHE fix income and wealth disparity she would respond by repeating the same left wing Socialist rhetoric of redistribution.
The " Rich " should give some of their money to the poor
Sanders initiatives appeal to the type people that have a child's view of the World and its issues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?