No but I think that was obvious to everyone before, wasn't it? He's no more independent than anyone else. Don't get me wrong though - I do respect the guy for admitting he's a socialist, which sets him apart in that regard.
With the current structure in DC, no President is going to be able to change much. Single payer won't fly. We'll still march into ME countries (something I wish we would stop doing). And so on.
It is clear what Sanders ultimate goal will be. He will run lead blocker for Clinton. He will be Clinton's bulldog going after the GOP hard while Clinton can stay above the fray until the GOP nominates their no. 1.
To be honest, none of the trickle down ever trickled down. However, what is worse would the kind of Socialism that Sanders would bring to the White House. And Hillary? She is a Neoliberal's Neoliberal. She might even have some Neocon in her. The last thing America needs is more Bush's or Clintons. I will vote Republican in 2016.
I guess we'll agree to disagree about his independence.
Sanders will be POTUS when pigs fly, but I agree that anyone who CAN become POTUS will have to toe a certain line that doesn't vary a whole lot from party to party, but that's more a function of what kind of candidate is more or less allowed to be elevated to the position than a comment on what a hypothetical person might do if pigs flew, such as Sanders on the left or Ron Paul on the right.
It is clear what Sanders ultimate goal will be. He will run lead blocker for Clinton. He will be Clinton's bulldog going after the GOP hard while Clinton can stay above the fray until the GOP nominates their no. 1.
I guess we'll agree to disagree about his independence.
Sanders will be POTUS when pigs fly, but I agree that anyone who CAN become POTUS will have to toe a certain line that doesn't vary a whole lot from party to party, but that's more a function of what kind of candidate is more or less allowed to be elevated to the position than a comment on what a hypothetical person might do if pigs flew, such as Sanders on the left or Ron Paul on the right.
Well, yes, he calls himself a democratic socialist, so that's a fair characterization.
I guess the way I evaluate people on the right or left with regard to their political character is to imagine a majority of those like them in the Senate in this case. If you had 60 Chuck Schumers I doubt a lot would change. If you had 60 Bernie Sanders, we'd be living in a different country, if bills passing through the Senate became law. Same with Ron Paul, and a few others on the right.
Since your comments on Sanders haven't been proven--To be honest, none of the trickle down ever trickled down. However, what is worse would the kind of Socialism that Sanders would bring to the White House. And Hillary? She is a Neoliberal's Neoliberal. She might even have some Neocon in her. The last thing America needs is more Bush's or Clintons. I will vote Republican in 2016.
Could be but I doubt that. I've never heard a word from him indicating he wants to play the role of shill for Clinton. Not sure what an independent from Vermont gets out of that exercise. It's not like he needs some help getting reelected - I think he won by 40 points last time.
I liked Ron Paul, but didn't vote for him (ever). I'm desperately waiting for a candidate who is a true Libertarian who can actually drum up votes. Or bring back Goldwater from the dead.
You mean in the middle politically? That I do. I fall above the middle financially. If my taxes were raised again, it wouldn't be right. I'm not looking to punish anyone, including myself.
I liked Ron Paul, but didn't vote for him (ever). I'm desperately waiting for a candidate who is a true Libertarian who can actually drum up votes. Or bring back Goldwater from the dead.
I would vote for Rand Paul. I disagree strongly with his economic policies, but the danger to America at this time is government overreach in spying programs and unauthorized war, which are more important issues at this time. Rand Paul would be a good weapon to have against the creeping authoritarian takeover of our Democracy.
Goldwater would be called an Evul Leebrul by some in here. He was fantastic on conservation and the environment.
Sen. Goldwater hated the lurch of the GOP to the Christian right.
And I so appreciate FOX telling me the GOP strategy of attacking Mr. Obama over foreign policy on Bret Baier right now.
Meanwhile, Sen. Graham continues to push boots on the ground and ZERO Libertarian pols speak against it .
Goldwater would be called an Evul Leebrul by some in here. He was fantastic on conservation and the environment.
I meant financially. It's the folks who ain't rich and ain't poor getting squeezed right now. As always.
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
~Barry Goldwater
Rand Paul will not have the juice to change any of that. RP will have even less support on Gitmo, NSA, FISA Court...ect. than Obama from both the GOP and DEM.
He was fantastic on a lot of things. I was way too young at the time to support him (I was only 2), but my parents loved him and he was my first real introduction to politics because they talked about him for years.
His ideas on curbing pollution were trend setting.
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
~Barry Goldwater
My father took me to the Republican convention in Cleveland in 1964. I got to shake Goldwater's hand. I was 14 years old.
Now that is something very cool. I would have loved to meet him. Love the peanut butter quote by the way!
Goldwater was very similar to Sanders in that he was what he was, and put out there what he was and/or what he wanted. Goldwater was a good man. This country could really use him right now.
Goldwater was very different on economic policies. He would be considered a Libertarian today, but he was not an anarcho-capitalist, as so many Libertarians are now. He was almost knocked out of the running in 1964. William Scranton, a Senator from Pennsylvania, tried to get George Romney to run and take the nomination away from Goldwater. Romney refused. Nelson Rockefeller also did some nasty things, such as starting a whispering campaign against Goldwater just before the convention started. This is why Goldwater lost to Johnson in 1964. The "Daisy" commercial, claiming that Goldwater would bring nuclear devastation to America, was started by pissed off Republicans after he won the nomination, and of course, the Democrats played that piece over and over. Goldwater got even, though, by turning Ronald Reagan from a Democrat into a Republican, and the rest is history. LOL.
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?