One reason to vote for Bernie Sanders....

[jmdrake]

Sanders is a National Socialist which is Fascism. The difference between Trump and Sanders is the difference between Hitler and Mussolini, nothing.

Nonsense. Fascism is not socialism. It rejects the idea of class conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini
Creation of the National Fascist Party
Main articles: Fascism and Italian Fascism

By the time he returned from Allied service in World War I, there was very little left of Mussolini the socialist. Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure. In 1917, Mussolini got his start in politics with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5 (the equivalent of £6000 today), to keep anti-war protestors at home and publish pro-war propaganda. This help was authorized by Sir Samuel Hoare.[58] In early 1918, Mussolini called for the emergence of a man "ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep" to revive the Italian nation.[59] Much later in life Mussolini said he felt by 1919 "Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge".[60] On 23 March 1919, Mussolini reformed the Milan fascio as the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian Combat Squad), consisting of 200 members.[59]
The platform of Fasci italiani di combattimento, as published in "Il Popolo d'Italia" on 6 June 1919.
Italia Irredenta: regions considered Italian because of ethnic, geographic and/or historical reasons, claimed by the Fascists in the 1930s: green: Nice, Ticino, and Dalmatia; red: Malta; violet: Corsica; Savoy and Corfu were later claimed.

An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages was the fact that it claimed to oppose discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war.[61][62] Fascism instead supported nationalist sentiments such as a strong unity, regardless of class, in the hopes of raising Italy up to the levels of its great Roman past. The ideological basis for fascism came from a number of sources. Mussolini utilized works of Plato, Georges Sorel, Nietzsche, and the socialist and economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, to create fascism. Mussolini admired The Republic, which he often read for inspiration.[63] The Republic held a number of ideas that fascism promoted such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.[64] The Republic differed from fascism in that it did not promote aggressive war but only defensive war. Also unlike fascism, it promoted very communist-like views on property. Plato was an idealist, focused on achieving justice and morality, while Mussolini and fascism were realist, focused on achieving political goals.[65]

[Theocrat]

You want to talk pragmatism? Let's talk pragmatism.

Pragmatism is Rand Paul saying back in 2010 that we ought to keep Gitmo open and that the prisoners should be tried in military tribunals because testimony taken from torture would get thrown out in civilian court and "that would be a problem." (Note the testimony would also be thrown out of a military tribunal worth spit.)

Pragmatism is Rand Paul claiming he never said that Iran getting a nuclear bomb would not be a threat to the U.S. when there is video of him saying just that.

Pragmatism is changing from "I support the Civil Rights Act but have a problem with one section of it dealing with private businesses" to "I absolutely support the Civil Rights Act without any qualifications because it was needed to deal with previous discrimination." (He actually has a point on that particular flip flop but it's un-articulated.)

Pragmatism is Rand Paul on video telling Luke Rudowski that he had serious questions and concerns about the Bilderberg group, then after Bilderberg member Peter Thiel gave him a sizeable donation, all of a sudden avoiding questions about the Bilderberg. Rand Paul operative Jack "Southern Avenger" Hunter was dispatched to write an article basically calling anybody that talked about the Bilderberg group an idiot.

Pragmatism is that same Jack Hunter being asked to fall on his sword for the "crime" of in his younger years calling himself the Southern Avenger and wearing a confederate flag wrestling mask.

Pragmatism is endorsing Mitt Romney, whether or not his dad had really, really, really, dropped out of the race.

Pragmatism is endorsing Mitch McConnell for re-election.

Pragmatism is attacking Ted Cruz for calling McConnell a liar.

Pragmatism is signing the Tom Cotton letter, regardless of the explanation for signing it.

Pragmatism is voting for sanctions against Iran, regardless of the explanation for voting for it. I'll buy that it was a "symbolic gesture." But why was that symbolic gesture needed? Pragmatism.

Pragmatism is my continuing to support Rand Paul despite all of the above.

So....unless you were "smarter" than me and didn't support Rand....don't lecture me about pragmatism and the blindness it supposedly causes.

I do not want the likely pedophile Bill Clinton and his twisted wife anywhere near the oval office again. Bernie Sanders beating her in the primary assures that one happen. On the republican side, at this point, I really don't care who wins or loses. Everyone else left sucks. If Clinton is beaten in the primary, then I will be able to vote 3rd party in the general election with a clear conscience. If she wins the primary, than even though my vote likely won't matter because I'm in a "red state", I'll still have a strong temptation to vote for Trump/Cruz/ even (*gasp*) Rubio. Besides, being in a red state the primary is really the only time my vote counts in a presidential election anyway.

Lastly, I'm while angelatc favors fascism over socialism, and she's entitled to her opinion, I do not share it. I would rather live in socialist France or Canada than fascist era Spain, Italy or Argentina. Under democratic socialism I risk losing my money (the little I have.) Under fascism I risk losing my life.

Sure, Sen. Paul made some decisions that were not wise to make, and like yourself, I don't agree with them. However, none of those decisions aided in advancing socialism. That's what I'm criticizing about the pragmatism behind people like yourself who think that voting for Sanders is a good thing. You are advancing socialist ideas, by trying to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

[jmdrake]

Sure, Sen. Paul made some decisions that were not wise to make, and like yourself, I don't agree with them. However, none of those decisions aided in advancing socialism. That's what I'm criticizing about the pragmatism behind people like yourself who think that voting for Sanders is a good thing. You are advancing socialist ideas, by trying to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

Right. Trying to keep a child molester away from the Whitehouse is advocating socialist ideas.

I haven't advocated any "ideas" at all. Neg rep for lying.

[jmdrake]

I posted this in another thread but it deserves repeating.

At this point, who cares? Rand is out. The top two GOP contenders equally suck. The rest suck even more. Should I vote for Cruz to stop Trump? Should I vote for Trump to stop Cruz? Should I vote for Bernie to stop Hillary? Of all the candidates I want stopped most, it's Hillary.

When this thread was started Rand was still in the race and the Iowa disaster had not happened. Any libertarian voting for anyone but Rand at that point can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. But now? Screw it. It really doesn't matter what you do in the primary. Go to the voting booth and pull out your wiener and pee all over the electronic voting machine that may very well be rigged anyway. What difference does it make?

In 2008 and 2012 Ron state in long enough for me to vote for him. We didn't stand a chance but I believed that we did. Now? Excuse my for not hyperventilating over the fact that the one politician honest enough to at least admit that he's a socialist could actually be elected president. Think of the benefits when it comes to gridlock! Imagine Mitch McConnell having to explain to the voters back home why he caved on a socialist increase in the debt ceiling. Imagine Paul Ryan having to explain why he's giving a socialist more power to spy on the American people. Maybe those two pricks will finally develop a backbone.

If Bernie Sanders could get any of his agenda passed then this country is beyond saving anyway.

[jkob]

Shortsighted is believing that there is any reason to participate in the GOP primary this election season. Unless you have a liberty house or senate member on the line "What difference does it make?" There is a reason to participate in the democratic primary and that is to stop Hillary. Edit: And Hillary is the candidate most likely to start WWIII.

fwiw in Arizona we get to retire John McCain and legalize marijuana, should be a good night if thing turn out

hopefully McCain gets beat in the primary by Dr Kelli Ward but I will vote for the Democrat otherwise, wish we'd see more support for Ward on here especially now that Rand is finished. Ward would be a great ally in the senate, another doctor too!

can't imagine Trump not winning this state but maybe he'll galvanize the Mexicans so much the legal ones will all come out to vote and make it competitive which would be good news for firing McCain and passing legalization.

[LittleLightShining]

Sure, Sen. Paul made some decisions that were not wise to make, and like yourself, I don't agree with them. However, none of those decisions aided in advancing socialism. That's what I'm criticizing about the pragmatism behind people like yourself who think that voting for Sanders is a good thing. You are advancing socialist ideas, by trying to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

Hey, my old pal, Theo Nice to see you!

Bernie may be "advancing socialist ideas" but really he's naming what already exists. We already have democratic socialism. Every single candidate on the field is calling for democratic socialism, just not naming it. Which is another reason I like Bernie-- what you see is pretty much what you get. I think he really does care about struggling families and the elderly and I think he genuinely wants a better quality of life for people. The systems he wants to fix aren't working anyway.

He's not Ron Paul. No one is Ron Paul. In retrospect, I got a little carried away with my support for Ron Paul and the "liberty movement." I most likely won't ever work for someone like that (for free) again. But right now, I think Bernie's the best we can do and I don't mind talking about it.

[jmdrake]

fwiw in Arizona we get to retire John McCain and legalize marijuana, should be a good night if thing turn out

hopefully McCain gets beat in the primary by Dr Kelli Ward but I will vote for the Democrat otherwise, wish we'd see more support for Ward on here especially now that Rand is finished. Ward would be a great ally in the senate, another doctor too!

can't imagine Trump not winning this state but maybe he'll galvanize the Mexicans so much the legal ones will all come out to vote and make it competitive which would be good news for firing McCain and passing legalization.

Wait a sec. McCain's seat is on the line? How did I miss that? When's the primary? What can I help? I'm broke at the moment but is there a phone bank or something? Seeing McCain go down in flames would make 2016 a good year.

[AuH20]

Bernie Sanders represents a special interest of sort demanding their share of the declining spoils. There is nothing that much different between his movement and the Wall Street cabal. At the moment, the only difference separating the two is the sheer gluttony of the Wall Street cabal, but I have a strong suspicion that once Bernie's troupe gets rolling, their demands will get even more unrealistic.

Just as a sidenote, I walk around NYC and I've recently seen flyers promoting a constitutional amendment for free housing. This trend sums the Bernie people in a nutshell, who want to be treated like hamsters for the remainder of their lives.

[devil21]

Just as a sidenote, I walk around NYC and I've recently seen flyers promoting a constitutional amendment for free housing. This trend sums the Bernie people in a nutshell, who want to be treated like hamsters for the remainder of their lives.

The fact is, the young generation (18-25yo?) is just plain LAZY and is absolutely loving a candidate that promises them 'somethin-fer-nothin'. Free this, free that. I'm watching the pure laziness first hand with young family members and it's nuts how unmotivated they are to do ANYTHING.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sanders on the other hand wants to enact socialist policy. He can't do that as potus, he would never get it past congress. He'd be fairly benign as potus.

LOL, Yeah, that worked out so well for all of the people who said that about an Obama presidency in 2007. "The country will fall apart and we will win in 2012!"

Sanders would get all kinds of things passed by the rubber-stamp, executive branch worshiping, mostly socialist Congress.

[Makes Interesting Points]

There is nothing more important now for the Libertarian and Paleocon movements to fight against than Socialism. Most on the left have no intention of ceasing movement to the left. If one doesn't think that Democratic Socialism can and will transform into something further left over time, then I don't see how they can believe in similar Libertarian positions, which are based on predictions of things sliding further into corruption. If the USA falls to Socialism, and new generations are born into it, they may not notice why their lack of freedom is wrong. Young freedom seekers will all flock to Democratic Socialism instead of Libertarianism. What is Libertarianism without Capitalism? I don't want the Libertarian movement to merge with Democratic Socialism forever... That would defeat the whole purpose of what we're doing here. A few of us may benefit from having one Democratic Socialist president, and then having it go back to something else. But the left ain't about to stop there like we would, and we can't give their movement any traction. It would be actually be better for the survival of Libertarianism to have a Republican president next, because it would keep Capitalism alive, and help prevent the Libertarian-Democratic-Socialism merger.

And for me personally, I can't support a movement in Democratic Socialism that is so enthusiastic to make 3rd trimester and partial-birth abortions legal on the federal level. This obliviousness to basic morality, and craze to go along with it reminds me of the mass delusion that made rise to Hitler.

[Chester Copperpot]

There is nothing more important now for the Libertarian and Paleocon movements to fight against than Socialism. Most on the left have no intention of ceasing movement to the left. If one doesn't think that Democratic Socialism can and will transform into something further left over time, then I don't see how they can believe in similar Libertarian positions, which are based on predictions of things sliding further into corruption. If the USA falls to Socialism, and new generations are born into it, they may not notice why their lack of freedom is wrong. Young freedom seekers will all flock to Democratic Socialism instead of Libertarianism. What is Libertarianism without Capitalism? I don't want the Libertarian movement to merge with Democratic Socialism forever... That would defeat the whole purpose of what we're doing here. A few of us may benefit from having one Democratic Socialist president, and then having it go back to something else. But the left ain't about to stop there like we would, and we can't give their movement any traction. It would be actually be better for the survival of Libertarianism to have a Republican president next, because it would keep Capitalism alive, and help prevent the Libertarian-Democratic-Socialism merger.

And for me personally, I can't support a movement in Democratic Socialism that is so enthusiastic to make 3rd trimester and partial-birth abortions legal on the federal level. This obliviousness to basic morality, and craze to go along with it reminds me of the mass delusion that made rise to Hitler.

and the best Republican running to keep capitalism alive is probably Trump.. What we definitely dont want is a fake conservative capitalist like Ted Cruz.. he would set back the liberty movement 20 years

[AuH20]

and the best Republican running to keep capitalism alive is probably Trump.. What we definitely dont want is a fake conservative capitalist like Ted Cruz.. he would set back the liberty movement 20 years

Cruz even goes as far to end his letters with "For Liberty." He's completely bipolar.

[Makes Interesting Points]

and the best Republican running to keep capitalism alive is probably Trump.. What we definitely dont want is a fake conservative capitalist like Ted Cruz.. he would set back the liberty movement 20 years

Damn Paul, why'd you have to suspend and make us make these painful preference choices?

I think the vast difference in 2nd choice candidates among everyone here really shows how different some of us think, and therefore shows how much Rand Paul united us all.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I just thought of a reason... His initials are B.S. !!!

[jmdrake]

I just thought of a reason... His initials are B.S. !!!

LOL. Good one!

[jmdrake]

LOL, Yeah, that worked out so well for all of the people who said that about an Obama presidency in 2007. "The country will fall apart and we will win in 2012!"

Sanders would get all kinds of things passed by the rubber-stamp, executive branch worshiping, mostly socialist Congress.

Obama rode in on a wave of anti republican sentiment. Right now the sentiment is anti-establishment. That means that it's unlikely that Sanders will get a democratically controlled congress like Obama got. Obama's most leftest stuff was done in his first two years. Since then stuff that's gotten passed has been stuff a republican would pass as well which is increasing the deficit and the police state.

[jmdrake]

and the best Republican running to keep capitalism alive is probably Trump.. What we definitely dont want is a fake conservative capitalist like Ted Cruz.. he would set back the liberty movement 20 years

LOLOLOL. Trump a capitalist? A fake that inherited his daddy's fortune, mismanaged it, filed bankruptcy multiple times, got bailed out by the banks, supports the banker bailouts, loves the government taking property from private individuals and giving it to other private individuals...he's a capitalist? BWWWAAAAAHHAAAA!

Seriously. I don't like Cruz. But I can't think of one reason to like Donald "America deserves an assault weapons ban" Trump over Ted "Snowden is no longer a hero...let's hang him" Cruz.

[puppetmaster]

Hey, my old pal, Theo Nice to see you!

Bernie may be "advancing socialist ideas" but really he's naming what already exists. We already have democratic socialism. Every single candidate on the field is calling for democratic socialism, just not naming it. Which is another reason I like Bernie-- what you see is pretty much what you get. I think he really does care about struggling families and the elderly and I think he genuinely wants a better quality of life for people. The systems he wants to fix aren't working anyway.

He's not Ron Paul. No one is Ron Paul. In retrospect, I got a little carried away with my support for Ron Paul and the "liberty movement." I most likely won't ever work for someone like that (for free) again. But right now, I think Bernie's the best we can do and I don't mind talking about it.

Bernie is absolutely in the bottom tier when it comes to candidates.....imagine the justices he would appoint. ....puke. Bernie supporters are the worst of human kind. EVERY BERNIE SUPPORTER I SEE IS A FREELOADER.

[Theocrat]

Sure, Sen. Paul made some decisions that were not wise to make, and like yourself, I don't agree with them. However, none of those decisions aided in advancing socialism. That's what I'm criticizing about the pragmatism behind people like yourself who think that voting for Sanders is a good thing. You are advancing socialist ideas, by trying to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

Jmdrake, there is no rational, ethical justification for supporting and voting in a socialist. If you call yourself a Christian, then you need to vote for people based on the criteria that God gave to His people in Exodus 18:21. On those grounds, no person who advocates socialist policies is fit to be a public servant because Socialism is based on covetousness, which is a sin. Therefore, your original post promotes sin, even if your intentions were good.

[Theocrat]

I didn't mean to quote myself in that last reply. This is the post I was responding to:

Right. Trying to keep a child molester away from the Whitehouse is advocating socialist ideas.

I haven't advocated any "ideas" at all. Neg rep for lying.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Without a strong libertarian option present, voting for gridlock may very well be the most viable path forward for liberty - or, at least, the path of most resistance for the State.

[unknown]

Of-course Sanders is better than Hillary.

But is a turd really that much better than a piece of $#@!?

[Dr.3D]

Of-course Sanders is better than Hillary.

But is a turd really that much better than a piece of $#@!?

Depends on the size. Given the choice and I had to eat one or the other, I would pick the smaller of the two.

[redmed]

You guys are too hung up on the word "socialist". People making more than $250,000 year will see their taxes go up if congress supports him. Congress raise taxes on themselves and their buddies?

Income envy. The Democrats keep repeating it and some start to believe it.

[Theocrat]

Hey, my old pal, Theo Nice to see you!

Bernie may be "advancing socialist ideas" but really he's naming what already exists. We already have democratic socialism. Every single candidate on the field is calling for democratic socialism, just not naming it. Which is another reason I like Bernie-- what you see is pretty much what you get. I think he really does care about struggling families and the elderly and I think he genuinely wants a better quality of life for people. The systems he wants to fix aren't working anyway.

He's not Ron Paul. No one is Ron Paul. In retrospect, I got a little carried away with my support for Ron Paul and the "liberty movement." I most likely won't ever work for someone like that (for free) again. But right now, I think Bernie's the best we can do and I don't mind talking about it.

I would say that every other candidate in the field is advocating either socialism or fascism. In that respect, I do agree with you that none of them are labeling their positions openly as such (with the obvious exception of Bernie Sanders). And, yes, I realize that we no longer function as a truly capitalist society because most of our policies fit into one of those two categories.

But that's the problem. We don't need further pushes into socialism nor fascism because both ideas are bankrupting our country, whether it's ethically or fiscally. History has proven over and over again that socialism and fascism do not work. They both lead to suffering, misery, despair, and a host of other social ills when they are imposed and integrated within a society.

So, why would you dare support individuals whose philosophies and policies will lead to that inevitable conclusion? Do you really want yourself and your children to grow up in a society where none of you can make a living for yourselves because of the decisions from oppressive and arbitrary politicians who lack a moral compass? If not, then why in the hell would you ever want to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, who wants to punish the prosperous, reward the lazy, and ultimately, empower himself to control both (because, of course, he thinks he knows how to spend our money better than we do ourselves)?

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, there is no rational, ethical justification for supporting and voting in a socialist. If you call yourself a Christian, then you need to vote for people based on the criteria that God gave to His people in Exodus 18:21. On those grounds, no person who advocates socialist policies is fit to be a public servant because Socialism is based on covetousness, which is a sin. Therefore, your original post promotes sin, even if your intentions were good.

Oh seriously go reproduce with yourself Theocrat. The basic tenant of socialism is "To each according to his need." You know where that comes from? The freaking Bible! Get off your hobby horse and go back and read it. Socialism is not based on covetousness. It's based on false idealism. The idealism is that those who have should help those who have not. And even in the Old Testament you see elements of redistribution of wealth from the year of Jubilee where debts were wiped out or the gleaning system where wealthy farmers were required not to harvest every bit of grain possible so that the poor could pick up food for free. When Jesus' disciples walked through a field that someone else owned and picked an ate grain, that was a form of socialism. Socialism ultimately doesn't work as a basis for an economy. But to put religious significance on it as you are is borderline blasphemous.

I do not agree with socialism because it is a failed economic policy. But the early Christian church was pure voluntary socialism. The idea behind socialism, everyman according to his need, comes straight from the book of Acts. When the disciples picked and ate grain in a field that was owned by someone else that was a form of socialism straight from the law of Moses. The year of Jubilee, where debts were wiped out, was a form of redistribution of wealth. Socialism is not based on greed. Socialism is based on idealism. Moses telling wealthy planters "Don't reap all your grain but leave some for the poor" was not based on greed.

Leviticus 23:22 "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"

Acts 4:32-35 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wait a sec. McCain's seat is on the line? How did I miss that? When's the primary? What can I help? I'm broke at the moment but is there a phone bank or something? Seeing McCain go down in flames would make 2016 a good year.

Ay caramba. Here's few threads:


Campaign Evaluation: Kelli Ward (U.S. Senate, R-AZ)
Dr. Kelli Ward, challenger to McCain, makes Tucson stops
Kelli Ward Blasts Obama’s Executive Order, ‘Assault On the Second Amendment’
Large Number of AZ Legislators Endorse Kelli Ward Over John McCain
Kelli Ward Resigns to Focus on Republican Primary Challenge
Kelli Ward beating McCain in new poll
John McCain's GOP challenger Kelli Ward raises $525,000

[Antischism]

Sanders isn't even a socialist. Maybe in America where "socialism" is still a bogeyman and people don't understand that a mixed economy isn't socialism, but he's actually for social democracy, not socialism—despite what he's labeling himself. I obviously don't know the man and it's entirely possible that he holds personal beliefs more in line with socialism, but it's certainly not present in his proposals. I bet many so-called "libertarians" also think libertarian socialism is an oxymoron given how much vitriol and misinformation exists on the concept. I like to think it's mostly the older generation after being emotionally crippled by McCarthyism/The Red Scare, but those sentiments have passed down to younger folks, too. There's a difference between state socialism and voluntary/libertarian socialism; there's a difference between state capitalism and anarcho capitalism.

[jmdrake]

Ay caramba. Here's few threads:


Campaign Evaluation: Kelli Ward (U.S. Senate, R-AZ)
Dr. Kelli Ward, challenger to McCain, makes Tucson stops
Kelli Ward Blasts Obama’s Executive Order, ‘Assault On the Second Amendment’
Large Number of AZ Legislators Endorse Kelli Ward Over John McCain
Kelli Ward Resigns to Focus on Republican Primary Challenge
Kelli Ward beating McCain in new poll
John McCain's GOP challenger Kelli Ward raises $525,000

Thanks! I'll check that out. I confess I saw Kelli's name tossed around a bit but didn't make the connection. Too obsessed with what was going on with Rand I guess.