Socialist Government

[Fly Rod]

Is this the type of government we want by voting in a socialist president(Bernie) ooops, I forgot we already have a socialist democratic president and administration.....President Francois Hollande of France basically admits that hiding behind manipulated data of unemployment has whacked the countries stability....ours almost sounds like theirs with unemployment stated here at about 5.5% in actuallity we do not count those that have run out of unemployment and considered working and actual unemployment here is around 14% or higher.....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...Kz&ocid=EIE9HP

[spence]

If Obama's a socialist he's certainly not a very good one. Not good at taking guns away either.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

If Obama's a socialist he's certainly not a very good one. Not good at taking guns away either.

No but he's pretty good at selling
them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

If Obama's a socialist he's certainly not a very good one. Not good at taking guns away either.

f

France even tho under socialist control still allows its citizens the right to own firearms....your president wants to take them...

Right on buckman...he is a great salesman for the gun dealers...I wonder if he is getting a commission...lol...

[Sea Dangles]

Another senseless spout of ignorant propaganda.
Get off the smack up there in fish city.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Another senseless spout of ignorant propaganda.
Get off the smack up there in fish city.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Propaganda!!.....ooops thought U were spence.

Smack ....U must B using it....if so C our police department they have a program to help UUUU, no charges, no arrest and a clean record if UUU stay clean....

[DZ]

Hypothetical: If Sanders was voted POTUS does anyone think he could actually get his socialist ideals through congress?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by DZ

Hypothetical: If Sanders was voted POTUS does anyone think he could actually get his socialist ideals through congress?

That is a question that everyone is ignoring. I think the gridlock in congress will be even worse with Sanders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

That is a question that everyone is ignoring. I think the gridlock in congress will be even worse with Sanders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he got elected, which he won't, it would be much worse, because both parties would be blocking him. In that sense, he would serve to bring the dems and republicans together, give him credit for that.

He's 25 points behinbd her in every single national poll. Nebe, I desperately want hinm to get th enomination, but it's very unlikely. Maybe if she gets indicted, which I cannot believe is likely either.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by DZ

Hypothetical: If Sanders was voted POTUS does anyone think he could actually get his socialist ideals through congress?

It's a work in progress. Our foundational structure and the character of its people throughout most of its history has made it impossible to change it with some overnight coup, or an election. The groundwork had to be laid for the long haul.

First the educational system. Then the Courts. Then the media.

Along with and driven by that progressive change over time is the most important element. The character of the people. That Sanders, an open socialist, is seriously being considered as President, especially among the younger generation, should be a clue that we may be on the verge of finally transforming the founding structure into the long sought after Progressive ideal of a socialist type of government.

The educational system is already predominantly Progressive. Sanders as President could massively shift the SCOTUS into a rubber stamp of Progressive legislation--which could make it easier to quiet a dissenting Press, as well as pretty much erase the last remnants of constitutionalism.

As for Congress, If Sanders' coattail gives the senate back to the Democrats, it will not only make his SCOTUS appointments easier, but help him win his policies. And then there is the precedence of unconstitutional types of Presidential executive orders which has been set. Congress has already been nullified in ways over the past decade, and can more completely be done as the road is paved for it.

Consider who the candidates of both parties might be and what they may accomplish because of accepted executive power to erode the Constitution. This article is interesting in that regard:

Left Still Isn't Sure If Being A Dictator Is A Bad Thing [COMMENTARY]

Liberal commentators have been quick to label Donald Trump a potential dictator - the same commentators who have applauded President Barack Obama's unilateral executive orders.

By Jack Cashill | Jan 04, 2016 10:24 AM EST

"If you Google "Donald Trump" plus "dictator," you will get more than one million hits. As you might imagine, almost none of them are favorable, especially from the folks on the left. Univision anchor Jorge Ramos was among the first to spot Trump's inner Mussolini. After being shut down by Trump at a press conference in August, he lamented, "Those are things you see in dictatorships, not in America."

"The Daily Show" host Trevor Noah compared Trump to potentates Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe and teased America - with the impunity allowed a progressive of color - to "elect its first African president." The headline of Barbara Hammond's piece in the Huffington Post cut right to the chase. "Donald Trump, Dictator?" she asked. Not surprisingly, Hammond answered in the affirmative, adding the explanation, common in media quarters, "Trump and his followers take the prize for ignorance of our constitution."

"One would think that our progressive friends, indignant as they are about Trump's potential for constitutional mischief, would insist that President Barack Obama honor that venerable document. This, however, presumes much too much consistency from the Obama faithful. To the degree that they have noticed Obama's assumption of imperial powers, they have applauded it.

"In early 2014 New Yorker editor and Obama fanboy David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west coast fund raising tour. At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, "It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama's speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, 'Executive order!,' demanding that the president bypass Congress with more unilateral actions." Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and "basically nullify Congress." At that point, wrote Remnick, "Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it!" These were not wild-eyed tent dwellers on Wall or some lesser street. These were the Democrats' educated base, the same people who worry that Trump and his ignorant followers will trample the Constitution.

"In the two years since, none of the president's many and consequential executive orders - open borders, anyone? - have caused his fans to rethink their fondness for bypassing Congress, even on constitutionally grounded issues such as the right to bear arms.

"We may not have a Congress that's willing to work with us on this right now," said Obama recently on the subject of gun control. "So the rest of us will have to do what we can." In reality, "the rest of us" means President Barack Obama. Obama doesn't see it that way. "That's the work of citizenship," he said last week, "to stand up and fight for the change that we seek." No, Mr. President, the only relevant "we" are the people's representatives in Congress.

"As I write this, the same pundits that fret anxiously about a Trump dictatorship wait breathlessly for Obama's promised executive order on gun control. The reporting on this imminent executive action betrays not the least anxiety about dictatorial usurpation. Politico talks about Obama's "bid to assert himself" as a way to "make progress on curbing gun violence." CNN writes approvingly that Obama's executive actions "would fulfill a promise by the president to take further unilateral steps the administration says could help curb gun deaths." Who could possibly be opposed to self-assertion, progress and the curbing of gun deaths, even if done unilaterally?

"If the current crop of progressives is OK with the selective demolition of the Constitution, old-school civil libertarians are not. Long time Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff spotted trouble coming early. "I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony," he told an interviewer. "Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to." Hentoff, who had been a sharp critic of George W. Bush, thought Obama much more dangerous. "Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution," he said. "The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution." Hentoff said this in December 2009. Obama still had seven years of weakening ahead of him and his fans seven more years of applauding."
---
Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessary represent those of Headlines and Global News.

[scottw]

great campaign slogan..."go ahead and elect me because I'm not likely to get anything done anyway"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

great campaign slogan..."go ahead and elect me because I'm not likely to get anything done anyway"

Well, he's been in DC for 85 years and done nothing of note, so maybe that slogan has worked for him all along.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That Sanders, an open socialist, is seriously being considered as President, especially among the younger generation, should be a clue that we may be on the verge of finally transforming .

Do you think Sanders' polling suggests a shift? Or is it a constant, simply a reflection of the fact that college kids have no idea how the world works?

If he ran 5, 10, or 20 years ago, perhaps his numbers would be similar, especially among college students. When I was in college, accummulating loans, I would have listened if someone said ""vote for me, all I'll do is tweak tax rates on the billionaires, and that will give you free tuition and healthcare", I would have fallen for that when I was 19.

I hope his numbers do not represent a shift. Because if they do, it's not a healthy shift.

[DZ]

I agree - having been a young college age voter once I can vouch that most do not understand the consequence of their votes in the long term view. Most are looking at what can my vote do for me NOW when my vote could provide giveaways like free tuition and tax hikes on everyone except me. I mean who wouldn't want that? Young people don't care that the country will be like Greece when they finally get old enough to care.

[JohnR]

He is calling for "Political Revolution" and a lot of people are eating it up. particularly those under 40 that have no concept or context of the 70 years PAX Americana. Revolution with red flags and worker's fists.

Originally Posted by Nebe

That is a question that everyone is ignoring. I think the gridlock in congress will be even worse with Sanders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope so

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If he got elected, which he won't, it would be much worse, because both parties would be blocking him. In that sense, he would serve to bring the dems and republicans together, give him credit for that.

He's 25 points behinbd her in every single national poll. Nebe, I desperately want hinm to get th enomination, but it's very unlikely. Maybe if she gets indicted, which I cannot believe is likely either.

I don't think so - there are a lot of people that believe this is the way. Many of those people ignorant of history and others that chose this path as career. Socialism is a career and enabling it furthers that career.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Propaganda!!.....ooops thought U were spence.

Smack ....U must B using it....if so C our police department they have a program to help UUUU, no charges, no arrest and a clean record if UUU stay clean....

4 ODs in 24 hours
Great police work
Nice town to raise a family
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

I'm voting for Bernie.
Tired of working.
I WANT FREE STUFF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

4 ODs in 24 hours
Great police work
Nice town to raise a family
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very good point....but keep in mind that majority of them come from out of town and majority of them in the program are from surrounding communities....and Y is the majority of the nation so stupid doing drugs....they C their friends die and yet they keep doing it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He is calling for "Political Revolution" and a lot of people are eating it up. particularly those under 40 that have no concept or context of the 70 years PAX Americana. Revolution with red flags and worker's fists.

Or, it could be that his rhetoric against wall street resonates because people know it's pretty true. In this regard Sanders is much less politically correct than Trump...he just doesn't have to insult people to get attention.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Or, it could be that his rhetoric against wall street resonates because people know it's pretty true. In this regard Sanders is much less politically correct than Trump...he just doesn't have to insult people to get attention.

Sanders and Trump are popular for exactly the same reasons

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

Sanders and Trump are popular for exactly the same reasons

People are pissed. I think the comparison ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

People are pissed. I think the comparison ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup...they're mad and not thinking...that's pretty much it

[buckman]

Curious… Who do you think Sanders would pick for arunning mate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Curious… Who do you think Sanders would pick for arunning mate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe Sean Penn?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

People are pissed. I think the comparison ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True.

Those drinking the Trump Kool Aid, by and large, want the feds to get their feet off their throats so they can make a living and send their kids to college.

Those drinking the Sanders Kool Aid are, by and large, jealous and entitled and want to be handed that which others kill themselves to achieve. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or, it could be that his rhetoric against wall street resonates because people know it's pretty true. .

What's pretty true? The business is evil, and if we just reduce their profits by a teenie-tiny bit, we can all have free healthcare and free college?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Curious… Who do you think Sanders would pick for arunning mate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's an easy one, the only one who hates business more than he does (that is, when she's not personally getting rich from it, because it's OK when she does it)...the Native American princess, Liz Warren.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Curious… Who do you think Sanders would pick for arunning mate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

one of the other Muppets maybe

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you think Sanders' polling suggests a shift? Or is it a constant, simply a reflection of the fact that college kids have no idea how the world works?

You probably mean "how the world SHOULD work." But our educational bureaucracies instill the relativist view that it's a matter of opinion. And the opinion that counts, in a world without guiding principle, is that which appointed "experts" (and Spence) say is the right one. Usually the one considered the most "pragmatic" and efficient.

So college kids of today actually do have an idealistic (ideological) idea taught to them of how the world SHOULD work. And, more than us older, stuck-in-the-mud "Conservatives," they have grown into, therefor accept and "understand," how our American world "works." They are acculturated to accept a priori that the governmental operation is how it is supposed to be. Most Americans, and especially those still being "educated," accept our form of a centralized Administrative State as perfectly and normally being how our government should work. Whatever the government does is not questioned as to whether it has the constitutional power to do it, but whether it is a "good" or better thing to do. The pragmatic view cares not about appropriateness, right or wrong, but does it "work." Is it the most efficient way, etc. So, yes, college kids do have an idea of how our world "works." But what they lack is "an idea" of how unopposed centralized power, no matter how "efficient" or "pragmatic," can and will erase any "idea" of their existence as individuals with basic rights which cannot be trampled by government.

There's this little article by a stuck-in-the-mud Conservative which touches on the actual size, complexity, and unmitigated power our Administrative State has:

http://theresurgent.com/trump-is-pop...6cb6-266050641

"There are 456 “official” federal agencies, and many of these have bureaucracies within them. According to The Center for Small Government, just the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has 47 separate bureaucracies! Let’s say the average, for the sake of time, is 40. That’s 18,240 bureaucracies, and 2.6 million (give or take) federal employees.

There are 535 federal legislators in Congress who are elected to oversee, fund, and pass laws to regulate this morass. If we divided it up equally, that’s 42 bureaucracies per Congressman/woman, and 182 bureaucracies per Senator. Congress has roughly 200 committees to discuss all of these, and other, items they deal with.

It’s impossible.

Congress needs a huge staff just to keep up with the alphabet soup. Bonus question: Off the top of any Representative or Senator’s head, what’s the budget for Climate Change Adaptation technical assistance program grants for the Office of Insular Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior? Don’t know? Me neither, but President Obama signed Executive Order 13653 to make these grants happen. It’s buried somewhere under 20 line items.

How do you roll back 80,000 pages of federal regulations? How do you undo the Gordian knot? How do you stop the avalanche?"

And Federal Regulatory agencies are little fiefdoms which have executive, legislative, and judicial power in themselves. They are little tyrannies.

If he ran 5, 10, or 20 years ago, perhaps his numbers would be similar, especially among college students. When I was in college, accummulating loans, I would have listened if someone said ""vote for me, all I'll do is tweak tax rates on the billionaires, and that will give you free tuition and healthcare", I would have fallen for that when I was 19.

I hope his numbers do not represent a shift. Because if they do, it's not a healthy shift.

When I was in college, there was still a different view of how our government was supposed to operate, but the progressive view was on the verge of totally changing that. No, it is not a constant. Past generations had different ideas of how the world, and specifically how the American world, "works." There has been a shift.

But no shift is permanent. It remains, yet, to see which direction it goes in November and beyond.

[detbuch]

Here is a "Conservative's" opinion on America's "shift" toward socialism if Trump is the Republican nominee for President (either Hillary or Sanders, of course, being the Democrat nominee).

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/26/p...tm_campaign=nl