Bernie Sanders nonsense.

Bernie Bernie Bernie…..I can’t help but notice some of the folks on this board keep on referring to Sanders as a Scandinavian style socialist, and I think it’s time to point out how wrong this is. Sanders is your run of the mill Marxist socialist.
 
For starters the most obvious difference on free trade.  Sanders has been openly hostile to the idea of free trade on the senate floor, wanting to tear up our free trade agreements and replace them with a protectionist system under the almost certain to fail premise that it will protect against outsourcing and globalization.    Believe it or not, there are some Scandinavian countries that are better on the issue of free trade than the US, given their classically liberal roots and have been a beacon of free trade in Europe. They are better and have been for quite a long time. 
 
There are a few that aren’t quite as good on free trade, but the ones that aren’t are also heavily invested in energy production…something Sanders would not support.
 
Sanders certainly wouldn’t favor the significantly lower corporate tax rates some Scandinavian countries have.
 
I’ve heard nothing of Sanders wanting to tear up the existing school system and install a widespread system of public/private competition driven by vouchers like some Scandinavian countries have.  I'm pretty sure he would recoil in horror at such a concept in fact.
 
It’s true that at least Sweden does have a nonsensical law/regulation requiring businesses to waste time demonstrating they pay women the same as men….but unlike Sander’s (and Clintons) irresponsible rhetoric involving the economically illiterate 77 cents on the dollar that women earn, Sweden actually takes relevant economic factors into account in meeting these requirements, which is exactly why they are pointless.  When considering a multitude of economic factors based on personal choice, the actual gap between men and women is somewhere between 3 and 6%, and is nonexistent in comparisons of recent generations…which is pretty much the same in Sweden as it is in the US without any such nonsensical law...and there are still  factors (such as qualitative factors) that cannot be taken into account that would likely close that small gap.
 
 
The most significant difference is most likely the fact that Sanders social-wants are apples to oranges in comparison to Scandinavian countries, mainly because the classically liberal (not neoliberal or progressive) roots of those countries made their relatively small populations wealthy and until recently they haven’t seen a huge influx of needy that would draw off their social system (by the way, these roots can be seen in their policies on free trade). This would be similar to comparing lavish social programs that only existed for the poor in Beverly Hills to the same types of welfare programs that would exist across the entire US….simply put, if you don’t have many needing to draw from the system, socialist policies are pretty effective.  
 
 
 The problem is when they gain widespread use, which is a growing problem for Scandinavian countries.  A better example of what widespread social programs would look like here would be to look at what’s happening to all of Europe, which is considerably closer in size and diversity to the US than is a small Scandinavian country…as you can see, not working quite as well. 
Also, we have Sanders on the topic of breaking up the banks.  I know this has gotten a few people who were partial to Ron Paul to perk up their ears… but feel free to put them back down.  Sanders plan doesn't really do anything helpful.
 
 
While I could almost support Sanders plan to break up the banks simply so they would be slightly less effective in buying off politicians, his plan really doesn’t address the problem with potential bank failure.  He is not planning to do anything to the central banking system as far as I know, so the FED can keep pumping in money as fast as it wants into the economy, and he is planning nothing to cease the other quasi-governmental agencies that acted as a steering wheel to pump that money into a specific sector of the economy and blow it up.
 
 
As long as this is still in place, breaking up the banks could actually have a considerably worse effect in an economic crisis.  Smaller banks would be forced to do what the all banks do involving the spreading of risk between other lending institutions.  Because of their diminished size they would probably be more likely to fall to a potential risk and have a greater need to spread that risk…meaning if there was a run on a few banks, there would likely be a depression-like run on all banks.  I don’t see smaller banks being particularly better protection…in fact it sounds worse.
 
  This would just be a smaller, faster set of dominos to topple.
 
Also, the smaller size of the banks would make them less competitive with larger banks outside of the US, and I’m not sure why we would want to give that up when this isn’t a real solution to any problem with potential bank failure.
 

He's a socialist idiot. But, i'll give him credit. He is honest about what he wants and sais. Not like Clnton. I give him credit there. He speaks what he wants.

 

UGCTT_I_love_the_hunt - 


He's a socialist idiot. But, i'll give him credit. He is honest about what he wants and sais. Not like Clnton. I give him credit there. He speaks what he wants.



 



I don't give him credit....not given his stance on free trade.



 



His plans brought to fruition would cause a global economic crisis that would considerably impoverish hundreds of millions, if not billions....and what kind of wild animals would we have in office in his wake?



 



Luckly, Sanders isn't dangerous, which is exactly why the Republican hate machine isn't really targeting him yet.  Him winning the nomination would be a gift.  Attacking his plans would be easy and generate more than enough legitimate fear to get any number of the assholes on that side of the fence into office with ease.



 

Nonsense and drivel. You have no clue as to what you are talking about . The MAIN reason that Sanders will get elected is because he is honest , has a 25 year record of consistent voting and integrity. He wants to take the money out of politics and tax the rich.
Which are the exact reasons that shills like you read your little bullet points . You are cynical and being programmed by your rich daddies to protect their money.
And you don't even know it.
That's ok. We will vote for him anyway . Phone Post 3.0

UGCTT_I_love_the_hunt - 


He's a socialist idiot. But, i'll give him credit. He is honest about what he wants and sais. Not like Clnton. I give him credit there. He speaks what he wants.



 


He's a weak brainwashed victim, but you're right that he deserves some credit.

Primarily because he's got an unusual degree of integrity. He has actual principles, unlike frauds such as Hillary and Al Gore.

The man has been a professional politician for decades and decades, and his net worth is something like $300k. That's totally atypical, as most professional politicians get rich sitting in office. He believes in economic equality, and he's obviously living by that.

While Shrillary pretends to be for the people, and makes more money than Bernie's entire net worth for a single speaking engagement.

Al Gore has made half a billion off the ManBearPig scam, while commuting in a fleet of heavy SUVs, and flying between his several palaces in his giant carbon footprint jumbo jet.

Bernie flies commercial, and not in first class.

NBKfanforlife - Nonsense and drivel. You have no clue as to what you are talking about . The MAIN reason that Sanders will get elected is because he is honest , has a 25 year record of consistent voting and integrity. He wants to take the money out of politics and tax the rich.
Which are the exact reasons that shills like you read your little bullet points . You are cynical and being programmed by your rich daddies to protect their money.
And you don't even know it.
That's ok. We will vote for him anyway . Phone Post 3.0

He doesn't have a prayer. And it doesn't matter, because Americans have property rights and none of his naive policies would ever actually come to fruition.

He does have integrity. So, respect for that. But he hasn't got half a chance of being elected.

also according to the voting that someone did on this forum he would win the election if only OG members got to vote.

Im voting for him anyway. We dont need any of the other dipshits running. Noone that has announced they are going to run should ever be allowed to be president.

tunaburn - also according to the voting that someone did on this forum he would win the election if only OG members got to vote.

Im voting for him anyway. We dont need any of the other dipshits running. Noone that has announced they are going to run should ever be allowed to be president.


Yea, Ron Paul won that as well.



 



Also, at one point Herman Cain was the most likely to win presidential candidate early in our last national election.  



 



It's September.  Nonsense flys fast and loose this time of year.



 



Trump is a great example.

Big_Data - Actually some of those sounds legit, and every time I've heard his name thus far I think, "Fucking socialists.."

BUT, I will really really really enjoy watching all of the liberals who support him face the same problems with their base that Ron Paul did when he ran. Then THEY will have to face the reality that the majority of their party is sticking to what they know(corrupt politicians) with a death grip.


isnt that what the majority of both sides do? Vote for corrupt politicians? You really believe John McCain and Sarah Palin would be doing any better running the country right now?

If you truly answer yes to that then I have nothing else to say on the matter as you really have issues.

Thats the thing... we have a tendency to think of Scandinavian countries as avidly socialist, but in a bunch of very important ways they are more capitalist and less socialist than we are.   

 

 

 

also why are most of the top prosperous and happiest countries socialist while our country is clinging to a non working system and going down the shithole?

Im not a socialist but our system needs a massive overhaul.

tunaburn - 
Big_Data - Actually some of those sounds legit, and every time I've heard his name thus far I think, "Fucking socialists.."

BUT, I will really really really enjoy watching all of the liberals who support him face the same problems with their base that Ron Paul did when he ran. Then THEY will have to face the reality that the majority of their party is sticking to what they know(corrupt politicians) with a death grip.


isnt that what the majority of both sides do? Vote for corrupt politicians? You really believe John McCain and Sarah Palin would be doing any better running the country right now?

If you truly answer yes to that then I have nothing else to say on the matter as you really have issues.


I don't think they would be doing a better job than Obama...we wouldn't have the semi-facist healthcare comprimise dreamed up by Romney, and we would probably be bombing an additional country or three.  We would certainly still be spending just as much money.



Would Sanders cause more considerably more problems than any of those candidates?  Almost for certain.



 



What Sanders is proposing is exceptionally fucking dangerous in regards to free trade and overspending, and the only outcome would be his failure to push through his agenda, or an economic crisis that would likely give rise to a strongman that would make McCain look like Ghandi in his zeal for militarism.

Im going in full fledge Nationalist . Fuck the Reblicans and Democrats. Let the media talk their shit. I'm puting my money on the people this time. We fucked the last few times.

 

tunaburn - also why are most of the top prosperous and happiest countries socialist while our country is clinging to a non working system and going down the shithole?

Im not a socialist but our system needs a massive overhaul.

They're happiest because liberals makes the lists of happiest countries.

And those tiny little isolated culturally homogeneous countries are completely dependent on America covering the bulk of global R&D in medicine and defense.

You'll see what I mean, after they take in a few million Islamist refugees.

UGCTT_I_love_the_hunt - 

Im going in full fledge Nationalist . Fuck the Reblicans and Democrats. Let the media talk their shit. I'm puting my money on the people this time. We fucked the last few times.

 

 

The scary part is you have a huge amount of people dependent on the govt.

 

(i quoted myself)

 

So, who are you hoping wins, OP? Phone Post 3.0

stonepony - 
tunaburn - also why are most of the top prosperous and happiest countries socialist while our country is clinging to a non working system and going down the shithole?

Im not a socialist but our system needs a massive overhaul.

They're happiest because liberals makes the lists of happiest countries.

And those tiny little isolated culturally homogeneous countries are completely dependent on America covering the bulk of global R&D in medicine and defense.

You'll see what I mean, after they take in a few million Islamist refugees.


There's also that point I basically made in the original post...some of these supposed socialist countries are better on alot of issues we consider to be hardcore-capitalistic, and the recent influx of people on their support systems is a relatively new uptick. 



 



 

CavemanDave - 
tunaburn - 
Big_Data - Actually some of those sounds legit, and every time I've heard his name thus far I think, "Fucking socialists.."

BUT, I will really really really enjoy watching all of the liberals who support him face the same problems with their base that Ron Paul did when he ran. Then THEY will have to face the reality that the majority of their party is sticking to what they know(corrupt politicians) with a death grip.


isnt that what the majority of both sides do? Vote for corrupt politicians? You really believe John McCain and Sarah Palin would be doing any better running the country right now?

If you truly answer yes to that then I have nothing else to say on the matter as you really have issues.


I don't think they would be doing a better job than Obama...we wouldn't have the semi-facist healthcare comprimise dreamed up by Romney, and we would probably be bombing an additional country or three.  We would certainly still be spending just as much money.



Would Sanders cause more considerably more problems than any of those candidates?  Almost for certain.



 



What Sanders is proposing is exceptionally fucking dangerous in regards to free trade and overspending, and the only outcome would be his failure to push through his agenda, or an economic crisis that would likely give rise to a strongman that would make McCain look like Ghandi in his zeal for militarism.


I appreciate your honest answer. VU

I am ready for a massive change. Thats the reason as of now im voting Sanders.

Do I hope someone better comes along? Hell yes I do but at this moment there is noone proposing anything that even remotely seems like it might fix anything.

Ill take insane changes over doing the same shit that we have been doing.

The Adversary - So, who are you hoping wins, OP? Phone Post 3.0


I would hold my nose and vote for Paul if he wins the nomination...like many people said he's certainly not his father, but he's better than anybody else. 



 



If not Paul, I probably won't vote or cast a protest vote, as Im not interested in many of the other candidates and I don't think there will be much difference between them.  Carson is mildly intriguing minus the godspeak, but he's about to be thrown on the same burn pile as Paul when he let it slip that he's not much of a warmonger in the last debate.



Paul is exactly like his father in one way... he's about as likely to win this years republican primary.



 



If Bernie wins the nomination however, I will vote for whoever opposes him given how terrible and dangerous his ideas on spending and trade are...I'm not yet at the point that I want to watch the world burn.