# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Libertarian voting for Bernie Sanders in primary

## Unregistered

Hey guys,

Longtime lurker here, so I already know this thread won't be popular.

I'm an independent voter who leans Libertarian in politics. I voted for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election, and was sad to see him not do better in the race. I was really hoping he'd get 5% and be eligible for federal funds for a future race. Prior to that, with a friend I put up Rand Paul lawn signs in 2007 for the 2008 race. There was a lot that excited me about Ron Paul. I've always been independent. I voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996. I still remember him talking about the job loss the US would experience under NAFTA... he was right!

I have decided not to support Rand Paul's 2016 run. Although some of Rand's policies overlap with my own beliefs, he is in my opinion, too hawkish: he supported the wars in Afghanistan and continued US-led fighting in Iraq, instead of pulling us from those quagmires. And he would keep the military industrial complex in place. He is no Ron Paul. More importantly, he just cannot win as a Republican. I saw what happened in 2012, when Ron Paul was winning in Iowa, and votes from eight counties "went missing", and Santorum and then Romney were bizarrely declared winners by the GOP in Iowa, even with hundreds of uncounted votes, which took the sails out of Ron Paul's campaign. Rand Paul, like his father, will never get a fair shake from the GOP.

As of last week, I registered as a DEM to vote for Bernie Sanders in my state's primary. First time I've ever registered with a major party, and it feels weird. I will switch back after primary season.

While I don't like Big Government, there are several parts of Bernie Sanders' platform that overlap with my ideology, including Wall Street reform, anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA, anti-TPP and other trade agreements that harm US workers, he's against police authoritarianism, he's called for marijuana legalization at the state level, he's supported campaign finance reform, he's against for-profit prisons, voted against the PATRIOT Act, and voted against the war in Iraq. These are all stances that appeal to me. He's also got an 83% approval rating in his home state, which is unheard of in today's politics.

Unlike Rand's bid with the GOP, Bernie has a real shot at winning the Democratic nomination. He's neck-and-neck with Clinton in Iowa (the CBS/YouGov poll from December 17th has him at 45%, her at 50%, even on a landline poll), and he's ahead in New Hampshire. Wins in both states would propel him further through the MSM, and he's actually ahead or down only ten points or so in recent polls in Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Minnesota, Michigan, Arkansas, Maine, Vermont, and Wisconsin. He could actually win the nomination.

Anyone else here supporting Bernie Sanders?

----------


## The Gold Standard

No.

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## LatinsforPaul



----------


## Dr.3D

> In my state's primary. I'll switch back to non-affiliated afterwards.


But still, a socialist?   Whew....  Why endorse socialism?

----------


## T.hill

> Gary Johnson supported bringing the troops home from these endless wars. Rand Paul did not. He stated in 2010 that the war in Afghanistan was "a non-issue" to him.


Rand actually had this to say in 2010: During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.[137]* He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated.* 

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...istan_and_Iraq




> Yes, Afghanistan. Not Iraq. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are on the same page on this issue.


You specifically made reference to the "Afghanistan Wars" as a reason for not supporting Rand, therefore I don't see why you wouldn't equally hold this against Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul as well. As for him supporting the Iraq war look to the bold text above.

Also, it seems you haven't been following Rand very close recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politi...rders-bombing/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...in-afghanista/




> Do you, T.hill, believe Rand Paul will get a fair deal in the GOP primaries, after all the crap that happened to Ron Paul in 2012? I don't believe it. They will not let him win. You may want to hold out hope, but I witnessed that screwjob.


I don't know and neither do you, to say otherwise would be dishonest.

As a side note, I find it odd you believe Rand has no chance while believing that Bernie somehow does, because most believe he will end up losing to Hillary. On average has nationally polled _at least_ 20 points behind Hillary Clinton. He is also considered more of an unorthodox candidate by many voters because of his association with socialism.

----------


## dannno

> Bernie Sanders was a pacifist for decades. He now states he is not. And I think it's because he knows the military industrial complex would not let him win the campaign if he stated his real feelings on the matter, which were documented for many years.


Bernie Sanders supported Bill Clinton in the war in Bosnia, his constituents protested and he had them arrested!!! He supported the FIRST war against Iraq... How was he ever a pacifist?

If you're going to come in here and make outlandish and factually incorrect statements, you should just be banned. This isn't about a disagreement, this about someone coming in here and straight up lying and then not owning up to it. We have all refuted several of the statements you made in the OP and you have purposely NOT responded to any of those. 

Now you are making more factually incorrect statements. It seems pretty clear what your intentions are.

----------


## timosman

Maybe the OP will tell us what prompted the decision to post on RPF? I am really curious.

----------


## klamath

> Hey guys,
> 
> Longtime lurker here, so I already know this thread won't be popular.
> 
> I'm an independent voter who leans Libertarian in politics. I voted for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election, and was sad to see him not do better in the race. I was really hoping he'd get 5% and be eligible for federal funds for a future race. Prior to that, with a friend I put up Rand Paul lawn signs in 2007 for the 2008 race. There was a lot that excited me about Ron Paul. I've always been independent. I voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996. I still remember him talking about the job loss the US would experience under NAFTA... he was right!
> 
> I have decided not to support Rand Paul's 2016 run. Although some of Rand's policies overlap with my own beliefs, he is in my opinion, too hawkish: he supported the wars in Afghanistan and continued US-led fighting in Iraq, instead of pulling us from those quagmires. And he would keep the military industrial complex in place. He is no Ron Paul. More importantly, he just cannot win as a Republican. I saw what happened in 2012, when Ron Paul was winning in Iowa, and votes from eight counties "went missing", and Santorum and then Romney were bizarrely declared winners by the GOP in Iowa, even with hundreds of uncounted votes, which took the sails out of Ron Paul's campaign. Rand Paul, like his father, will never get a fair shake from the GOP.
> 
> As of last week, I registered as a DEM to vote for Bernie Sanders in my state's primary. First time I've ever registered with a major party, and it feels weird. I will switch back after primary season.
> ...


 I thought the same as you that Sanders was antiwar. He is only Against Republican wars but supports  Democrat wars. He supported both Libyan and Kosovo wars. For the record Democratic POTUS's have started more wars than Republicans.

----------


## klamath

> So much fail in the OP that I don't know where to start.  First he claims to have put up Rand Paul signs in 2007[/B].  What was *Rand* Paul running for in 2007?  Chairman of the local rotary club?  Second he says he doesn't like Rand because Rand supported the war in Afghanistan.  Guess what?  Ron voted for it!  Third he claims he's upset with Rand for supporting continuing keeping troops in Iraq.  Ummmmmm...no!  Rand wasn't one of the morons complaining that Obama took the troops out too soon and he has always been critical of the decision to send troops to Iraq in the first place.
> 
> And as for keeping the military industrial complex in place?  Hello?  How about Bernie Sanders supporting the 1.5 trillion dollar jobs program called the piece of crap F-35 "joint strike fighter."
> 
> Good grief.  I've seen some crazy arguments in my time but this one takes the cake.


 Good catches Drake. That is funny.

----------


## klamath

> Bernie Sanders was a pacifist for decades. He now states he is not. And I think it's because he knows the military industrial complex would not let him win the campaign if he stated his real feelings on the matter, which were documented for many years.


I would rather have Rand pandering to the base than Sanders pandering to the military industrial complex.....

----------


## Unregistered

> Rand actually had this to say in 2010: During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.[137]* He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated.* 
> 
> From Wikipedia:


As I said, he stated in 2010 that the war in Afghanistan was a "non-issue": http //www libertysflame com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=11226 (link disabled so I can post the URL).




> You specifically made reference to the "Afghanistan Wars" as a reason for not supporting Rand, therefore I don't see why you wouldn't equally hold this against Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul as well. As for him supporting the Iraq war look to the bold text above.


Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. Ron Paul called for shutting down the Iraq War. Rand stated in 2014 "[The troop surge] was a military tactic and it worked. In fact, some of the ideas from the surge could be used again." Bloomberg states, "Paul's assessment of the troop surge was at odds with the one offered by his father in 2007. Former U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas built a following with a hearty anti-war campaign, telling Republican audiences that America never should have entered Iraq. The "success" of the surge, he told libertarian-leaning reporter John Stossel at the time, was "propaganda." 

So Ron Paul states that we need to get out of Iraq, not buying into the warmonger propaganda, while Rand endorses the same propaganda. In that particular case.




> Also, it seems you haven't been following Rand very close recently.


It's great that Rand is finally evolving on the endless overseas wars. But as linked above, he was still endorsing the military industrial complex's propaganda in _May_, while he was running for president. If anyone will get us out of these endless wars, it will be the lifelong pacifist.





> I don't know and neither do you, to say otherwise would be dishonest.


I'm asking what you believe, not what you know. Do you honestly believe the GOP will allow Rand Paul to win, after what the GOP establishment pulled on Ron Paul and his supporters in 2008 and especially 2012? The nonsense with the early state delegates getting modified, the Paul caucus-goers in Iowa being physically cut off from the rest of the caucus in some major locations, the Establishment comments in the media, "spare me the Ron Paul talk", the brief moments of airtime he managed to get during the debates, even when the discussion was on medical topics? The same GOP establishment is in place that was in place in 2012.




> As a side note, I find it odd you believe Rand has no chance while believing that Bernie somehow does, because most believe he will end up losing to Hillary. On average has nationally polled _at least_ 20 points behind Hillary Clinton.


As I know you are aware, we don't vote in primaries _nationally_. We do it state by state (and territory by territory). And the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire are within Bernie Sanders' reach (or already there), as are about a dozen other states, the polls indicate. Add five big states and he would win the Democratic primary race. So there's an actual pathway. I think it's _likely_ that Hillary Clinton will win (ugh!), but Bernie does have a decent chance. And some pundits have predicted he will win, despite the establishment foisting Clinton on Americans. 

Rand, meanwhile, is polling at 4% in NH and and 1% in Iowa. Even a huge surge couldn't get him a win in the early states, and he can't win with just Kentucky.


Thanks for the cordial discussion, T.hill.

----------


## klamath

Waiting for LE to come in and defend the guy. We are being pretty rough and unwelcoming to him.... We might drive him away....

----------


## wetroof

It's a problem.. if college students in Iowa show up at the democratic caucuses rather than republican..

----------


## erowe1

> Peace and war matter very much to me. Rand Paul cannot win with an average of 10% in polls; he is less popular than his father, who was screwed out of the early primaries by war hawks.
> 
> Your graphic from the Cato Institute is great; it shows that Sanders is the least hawkish of the candidates who can actually win primaries in just over a month.


So you just completely changed your reason for supporting Sanders between the OP and now?

----------


## Todd

This is like......Hey I'm a Neo Con voting for the Dhali Lama.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Waiting for LE to come in and defend the guy. We are being pretty rough and unwelcoming to him.... We might drive him away....


Was thinking the same.

----------


## Unregistered

> Peace and war matter very much to me. *Rand Paul cannot win with an average of 10% in polls; he is less popular than his father, who was screwed out of the early primaries by war hawks.*


Your graphic from the Cato Institute is great; it shows that Sanders is the least hawkish of the candidates who can actually win primaries in just over a month.[/quote]



> So you just completely changed your reason for supporting Sanders between the OP and now?


No. In the original post, I stated: "I have decided not to support Rand Paul's 2016 run. Although some of Rand's policies overlap with my own beliefs, he is in my opinion, too hawkish: he supported the wars in Afghanistan and continued US-led fighting in Iraq, instead of pulling us from those quagmires. And he would keep the military industrial complex in place. He is no Ron Paul. *More importantly, he just cannot win as a Republican. I saw what happened in 2012, when Ron Paul was winning in Iowa, and votes from eight counties "went missing", and Santorum and then Romney were bizarrely declared winners by the GOP in Iowa, even with hundreds of uncounted votes, which took the sails out of Ron Paul's campaign. Rand Paul, like his father, will never get a fair shake from the GOP.*

(Emphasis added, so you can see the reason was in the original post).


Anyway, I see above that there's someone actually calling for my banning(!). Not wanting to stir a hornet's nest, I'll shut my yap for a while.

----------


## LatinsforPaul

> More importantly, he just cannot win as a Republican.)


So if and when Rand wins Iowa and if and when Bernie loses Iowa, will you then come back here and reconsider your support?

----------


## Spikender

> Big Bernie fan here also.  I'm a Trump supporter right now but if Bernie comes up with any more free stuff he can give me I might have to change my vote


Hey, BXM, why'd you change your name anyway? And are you really a texan?

----------


## dannno

> Anyway, I see above that there's someone actually calling for my banning(!). Not wanting to stir a hornet's nest, I'll shut my yap for a while.


That's because you keep lying and you won't own up to it, you're still doing it. 

Rand said the surge worked to suck up to the neocons - it was a stage he was going through - but he was never for the war in Iraq. He is responsible for bringing discussion of US supported regime change to the front of the Republican Party debates. Have you been watching those?





What you keep ignoring is that you implied that Rand was more of a war hawk, in fact a big war hawk, compared to Bernie Sanders when the opposite is true.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Emblematic of the soft "contrarian" support that Ron Paul experienced.  These people have no sense of economics, no understanding of the issues, nor do they really care.  They simply want the appearance of giving the establishment the finger - whether they actually end up supporting establishment policies or not.


Yep, they have moved on to feel the Bern.

----------


## Spikender

Libertarians today are actually expounding the virtues of Trump and Bernie.

Either the label of "libertarian" has been harshly watered down (probably is considering people like Beck and Maher call themselves libertarians) or libertarians are just going bonkers.

Probably a little of both.

----------


## Cabal

> Libertarians today are actually expounding the virtues of Trump and Bernie.
> 
> Either the label of "libertarian" has been harshly watered down (probably is considering people like Beck and Maher call themselves libertarians) or libertarians are just going bonkers.
> 
> Probably a little of both.


LINOS abounds.

----------


## klamath

This guy is really trolling us or just plain stupid. He keep hammering Rand for supporting MEC then turns around and says this...




> Bernie Sanders was a pacifist for decades. He now states he is not. And I think it's because he knows the military industrial complex would not let him win the campaign if he stated his real feelings on the matter, which were documented for many years.


So who is really supporting the MEC? Bernie's real feelings on the matter is he supported Clinton's war in Bosnia.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I have debated voting for Bernie if I don't think Rand is going to get the Primary.  The main reason being it's an early vote Against Hillary who I think is even worse.

----------


## T.hill

> That's because you keep lying and you won't own up to it, you're still doing it. 
> 
> Rand said the surge worked to suck up to the neocons - it was a stage he was going through - but he was never for the war in Iraq. He is responsible for bringing discussion of US supported regime change to the front of the Republican Party debates. Have you been watching those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you keep ignoring is that you implied that Rand was more of a war hawk, in fact a big war hawk, compared to Bernie Sanders when the opposite is true.


Don't forget this op-ed Rand published right before Christmas. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-Peacemakers


Also, Rand has recently been refining his whole 'surge' argument saying that while he believed it worked as a short-term victory against defined terrorist groups it won't work to limit general terrorism in the long run.


He talks about it a little bit in this video around the 3:00 mark.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Emblematic of the soft "contrarian" support that Ron Paul experienced.  These people have no sense of economics, no understanding of the issues, nor do they really care.  They simply want the appearance of giving the establishment the finger - whether they actually end up supporting establishment policies or not.


Exactly.

----------


## oyarde

Good Lord . Bernie is a communist as are all national Dem candidates.Communists are Never anti war .In fact , they intend to wage war on everyone .

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I can understand voting for Sanders in certain situations. For example, I live in California. In 2008, I voted for the only time in a presidential race, for Ron. It was in late June, and I think California was the last state to participate in the primary process, rendering my vote even more worthless than it already was. In 2012, I didn't bother going down the street to my local polling booth, as even Rand had endorsed Romney by that point.

This has been a terribly uninteresting way to say that, if it were easy to vote in either party's primary, voting for Sanders over Clinton could be more beneficial than voting for the least bad republican candidate.

----------


## timosman

> Exactly.


An easy lay decides to play the hard to get.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Hey guys,
> 
> [I'm a Bernie person, pretending to be a former Ron Paul person, trying to gather recruits for Bernie]
> 
> Anyone else here supporting Bernie Sanders?


No.

Go $#@! yourself.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Was thinking the same.


Wrong flavor of downtrodden. Only cares about offending one candidate and it ain't Bernie. It ain't Rand either for that matter.

----------


## Dianne

> Big Bernie fan here also.  I'm a Trump supporter right now but if Bernie comes up with any more free stuff he can give me I might have to change my vote


LMAO ..  Good one.

----------


## erowe1

> No. In the original post, I stated: "I have decided not to support Rand Paul's 2016 run. Although some of Rand's policies overlap with my own beliefs, he is in my opinion, too hawkish


If Rand is too hawkish (which is a reasonable opinion on its own), well, Bernie is by every possible measure more hawkish than Rand.

----------


## osan

> *[Rand Paul] says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated.*


This notion is very disturbing.  Who would have manipulated it?  The reasons are irrelevant to my point.  Either of four possibilities:  


Data was manipulated before intelligence got its hands on itIntelligence agency manipulated raw data directlySome intermediate party manipulated it prior to CIC seeing itCIC/administration chose to interpret as suited them, rather than suiting reality.

These are all pretty worrisome.

----------


## Working Poor

To OP:

I am glad you will be voting against Hillary in the primary. I would like to see both Hillary and Trump knocked down.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This notion is very disturbing.  Who would have manipulated it?  The reasons are irrelevant to my point.  Either of four possibilities:  
> Data was manipulated before intelligence got its hands on itIntelligence agency manipulated raw data directlySome intermediate party manipulated it prior to CIC seeing itCIC/administration chose to interpret as suited them, rather than suiting reality. These are all pretty worrisome.


My money is on option #5: "all of the above" ...

----------


## Unregistered

> To OP:
> 
> I am glad you will be voting against Hillary in the primary. I would like to see both Hillary and Trump knocked down.


Me too. If Hillary wins the Democratic primary, she will unfortunately win the election. And then we will slowly become entrenched in even more costly wars, becoming embroiled in wars in at least a dozen countries. It's already slowly happening. The wars will never end, and our sons, and possibly daughters, will be drafted to fight in those wars. Already, some neoliberals are calling for the draft to be reinstated. Neocons won't oppose this.

The MSM is in bed with the military industrial complex (sometimes quite literally, as in the case of CNN's Dana Bash, who you might recall attacked Ron Paul with false reporting), and neither the media on the right nor the left will condemn Hillary's warmongery. And the same media keeps boosting Trump's poll numbers through constant coverage.

I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they will be forced to fight in senseless overseas wars while the children of the the chickenhawks get deferments.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Me too. If Hillary wins the Democratic primary, she will unfortunately win the election. And then we will slowly become entrenched in even more costly wars, becoming embroiled in wars in at least a dozen countries. It's already slowly happening. The wars will never end, and our sons, and possibly daughters, will be drafted to fight in those wars. Already, some neoliberals are calling for the draft to be reinstated. Neocons won't oppose this.
> 
> The MSM is in bed with the military industrial complex (sometimes quite literally, as in the case of CNN's Dana Bash, who you might recall attacked Ron Paul with false reporting), and neither the media on the right nor the left will condemn Hillary's warmongery. And the same media keeps boosting Trump's poll numbers through constant coverage.
> 
> I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they will be forced to fight in senseless overseas wars while the children of the the chickenhawks get deferments.


What will you do when Bernie sends troops into Syria and starts a new war in some country in Africa? He serves the bankers just as much as any of the others, and the bankers love war money too. It's not just the MIC.

----------


## Unregistered

> What will you do when Bernie sends troops into Syria and starts a new war in some country in Africa? He serves the bankers just as much as any of the others, and the bankers love war money too. It's not just the MIC.


The Wall Street Journal doesn't believe Sanders "serves banks as much as any of the others"; neither does Forbes. They've been running hit pieces on him for months. It's clear they're worried about a President Sanders, who wants to break up the big banks that are supposedly "too big to fail", and hence receive huge government bailouts, while smaller banks are allowed to collapse.

You are right that it's not just the MIC that wants endless war. In fact, I mentioned above that the media is in bed with the military industrial complex. The endless middle east wars create a constant stream of media revenue, in the form of news stories that the media can then regurgitate for ratings.

Sanders has stated he'd push for wealthy Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to protect their own interests by sending troops to fight ISIS. We certainly can't sustain the costs of war ourselves. (Not that we should have been in Iraq in the first place).

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Wall Street Journal doesn't believe Sanders "serves banks as much as any of the others"; neither does Forbes. They've been running hit pieces on him for months. It's clear they're worried about a President Sanders, who wants to break up the big banks that are supposedly "too big to fail", and hence receive huge government bailouts, while smaller banks are allowed to collapse.
> 
> You are right that it's not just the MIC that wants endless war. In fact, I mentioned above that the media is in bed with the military industrial complex. The endless middle east wars create a constant stream of media revenue, in the form of news stories that the media can then regurgitate for ratings.
> 
> Sanders has stated he'd push for wealthy Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to protect their own interests by sending troops to fight ISIS. We certainly can't sustain the costs of war ourselves. (Not that we should have been in Iraq in the first place).


What day did you fall off the turnip truck?

How many other CONgresscritters do you believe and trust what they say?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The Wall Street Journal doesn't believe Sanders "serves banks as much as any of the others"; neither does Forbes. They've been running hit pieces on him for months. It's clear they're worried about a President Sanders, who wants to break up the big banks that are supposedly "too big to fail", and hence receive huge government bailouts, while smaller banks are allowed to collapse.
> 
> You are right that it's not just the MIC that wants endless war. In fact, I mentioned above that the media is in bed with the military industrial complex. The endless middle east wars create a constant stream of media revenue, in the form of news stories that the media can then regurgitate for ratings.
> 
> Sanders has stated he'd push for wealthy Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to protect their own interests by sending troops to fight ISIS. We certainly can't sustain the costs of war ourselves. (Not that we should have been in Iraq in the first place).


Don't be an idiot. Sanders isn't going to do anything to harm the bankers that he would need to finance his enormous welfare state and government take over of industry. He will do what he is told, which means more war.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Waiting for LE to come in and defend the guy. We are being pretty rough and unwelcoming to him.... We might drive him away....


No, people were actually reasoning with him.  Nothing wrong with that.

----------


## timosman

> Don't be an idiot. Sanders isn't going to do anything to harm the bankers that he would need to finance his enormous welfare state and government take over of industry. He will do what he is told, which means more war.


Here is the problem with the boobus. They think the politicians would not lie to their faces. Will they ever learn? 

Does everything need to be black and white?

----------


## Rad

I wish Bernie the sheepdog could beat his master but Hillary is the one with the rolled up newspaper. Bernie might be smart enough to not start a war but he isn't smart enough to end one that already is started. 

Bernie Sanders: 


> "I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported President Clintons effort to deal with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I support air strikes in Syria and what the president is trying to do," stated Sanders during the first debate.


http://original.antiwar.com/chris_er...e-empires-pie/

----------


## Unregistered

would never vote for an admitted Democratic Socialist. He admitted it in the debate on CNN. They asked him about it.

All parties have some things we all agree on. But, having the govt do everything for you is not one a Libertarian would espouse.  You said you like Rand, but have issue with the war thing. Rand wants any war approved by congress. A far cry from wanting war period.  Why not stay Libertarian and and vote for him.  I'm sure there are things that you do not like about Bernie, yet you are going to vote for him?  I don't understand that.

The more we let socialist ideas into our society, the more we lose are freedoms and become slaves to govt.

----------


## Joeinmo

Bernie is a liar and he knows it, his policies that you like are more for getting votes than what he will actuall do, which is an income grab.

i think your are as far away from libertarian ideas as you can possibly get with Bernard

----------


## jonhowe

I'm switching parties to vote Bernie in the primary, but only because he is less-bad than Hillary (mainly in that he wont have the political support to pass most of his agenda) and because I'm in a state where Rand has zero chance no matter what year it is. My general election vote will be for Rand if hes nominated, but it won't be for sanders if he is. I'll vote 3rd party in that case.

----------


## jonhowe

> So if and when Rand wins Iowa and if and when Bernie loses Iowa, will you then come back here and reconsider your support?


Does Rand have a chance in Iowa at this point?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Does Rand have a chance in Iowa at this point?


He's got more than twice as many precinct captains as Ron Paul had this time in 2012, and Ron Paul basically won the caucuses, so yes it's possible.  The Caucus system is different enough from the Primary system that polling may not be determinative.

----------


## Unregistered

> I'm switching parties to vote Bernie in the primary, but only because he is less-bad than Hillary (mainly in that he wont have the political support to pass most of his agenda) and because I'm in a state where Rand has zero chance no matter what year it is. My general election vote will be for Rand if hes nominated, but it won't be for sanders if he is. I'll vote 3rd party in that case.


Yes. You get it. We want the least-bad people running for office. Hillary Clinton needs to not be in this race at all, because then even the narrative of the campaign can't be pushed towards peace. Can you imagine her in office? Under her, the United States would be at constant war with dozens of other countries. 

My plan is to vote for Bernie in the primary, and likely Gary Johnson in the general election. A Third Party vote is at least a protest.

----------


## Unregistered

> He's got more than twice as many precinct captains as Ron Paul had this time in 2012, and Ron Paul basically won the caucuses


The GOP caucus system in Iowa is corrupt, and Ron Paul was cheated out of his Iowa victory by liars heading the Iowa Caucus, who "lost the results" in eight counties, shut out the "Paultards" at many caucus sites, and who botched the entire process. The GOP leadership has not changed in Iowa since then.




> so yes it's possible.  The Caucus system is different enough from the Primary system that polling may not be determinative.


At this time in 2012, Ron Paul was polling at 23% in Iowa. Rand Paul is currently polling at between 1-5% in Iowa, depending on the poll. There's even talk among the GOP establishment to demote Rand down to the GOP "kiddie table" at the remaining debates. They will do everything they can to make sure he cannot win, and Rand lacks the popularity that Ron enjoyed. Precinct captains have to have "some" backing from caucus-goers, and there is almost no backing from the voters. An average of 3% of voters is not enough to win more than a handful of precincts. 

I won't discourage anyone from voting for the candidate he or she believes is the best chance for liberty, peace, and prosperity, but don't go into this starry-eyed, thinking Rand can win any primary or caucus outside of Kentucky and maybe Alaska. As we have seen, the GOP establishment _will_ lie, cheat, and steal from anyone who doesn't support the Military Industrial Complex.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Yes. You get it. We want the least-bad people running for office.


I have no idea where anyone gets the idea that Sanders is less bad than Hillary. He may not be as bellicose as she is on foreign policy, but he is no peace candidate, and will continue all of the current wars and start any new ones his banker masters see fit. His government takeover of the economy is ultimately no different than what Hillary would do.

----------


## oyarde

> I have no idea where anyone gets the idea that Sanders is less bad than Hillary. He may not be as bellicose as she is on foreign policy, but he is no peace candidate, and will continue all of the current wars and start any new ones his banker masters see fit. His government takeover of the economy is ultimately no different than what Hillary would do.


That is my opinion .

----------


## oyarde

> Don't be an idiot. Sanders isn't going to do anything to harm the bankers that he would need to finance his enormous welfare state and government take over of industry. He will do what he is told, which means more war.


Correct.

----------


## oyarde

> Does Rand have a chance in Iowa at this point?


Yes.

----------


## Unregistered

> I have no idea where anyone gets the idea that Sanders is less bad than Hillary.


Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against deploying troops in Iraq in 2003. Hillary voted for the Iraq War.

Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against the so-called PATRIOT ACT. Sanders voted three times against the proposed extension of the Act in 2011. Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act.

Sanders has called for the decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level. Hillary's husband was one who helped install mandatory drug sentencing laws, eventually turning the US into the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.




> He may not be as bellicose as she is on foreign policy, but he is no peace candidate, and will continue all of the current wars and start any new ones his banker masters see fit.


Which fat cat bankers have donated money to the Sanders campaign, Gold Standard? Are there really any? OpenSecrets has a list of big campaign contributors to his campaign, and the contributors are steelworkers, carpenters, teachers, and nurses. Middle-class people. The banking industry does not seem to support him, or his proposal to offer some banking services in local post offices. It would cost big banks billions in lost transaction fees.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against deploying troops in Iraq in 2003. Hillary voted for the Iraq War.
> 
> Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against the so-called PATRIOT ACT. Sanders voted three times against the proposed extension of the Act in 2011. Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act.
> 
> Sanders has called for the decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level. Hillary's husband was one who helped install mandatory drug sentencing laws, eventually turning the US into the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Which fat cat bankers have donated money to the Sanders campaign, Gold Standard? Are there really any? OpenSecrets has a list of big campaign contributors to his campaign, and the contributors are steelworkers, carpenters, teachers, and nurses. Middle-class people. The banking industry does not seem to support him, or his proposal to offer some banking services in local post offices. It would cost big banks billions in lost transaction fees.


Sanders wasn't running for president when he voted against those things. He would damn sure support them now if that's what he needed to do to finance socialized health care. 

I don't know or care who has donated to Sanders. That doesn't mean anything. Just because bankers might prefer Hillary, or maybe just think she is more viable, doesn't mean they won't like Sanders too. They don't give a $#@! about pennies at the post office when they will be earning interest on trillions in new debt.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Me too. If Hillary wins the Democratic primary, she will unfortunately win the election. And then we will slowly become entrenched in even more costly wars, becoming embroiled in wars in at least a dozen countries. It's already slowly happening. The wars will never end, and our sons, and possibly daughters, will be drafted to fight in those wars. Already, some neoliberals are calling for the draft to be reinstated. Neocons won't oppose this.
> 
> The MSM is in bed with the military industrial complex (sometimes quite literally, as in the case of CNN's Dana Bash, who you might recall attacked Ron Paul with false reporting), and neither the media on the right nor the left will condemn Hillary's warmongery. And the same media keeps boosting Trump's poll numbers through constant coverage.
> 
> I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they will be forced to fight in senseless overseas wars while the children of the the chickenhawks get deferments.


i've been anti-war since Vietnam in the 60's. My bitch is i think 'wars' should be declared by Congress. Get in, kick ass, get out in short order. I 'used' to think the Democrats were anti-war, and always voted for the dem. Lesson learned, and Ron Paul did the teaching. No more voting for dems. I believe Bernie says he's a dem, so therefore $#@! him, and you go right on ahead supporting people who lie to you. Good luck.

I STAND WITH RAND.

----------


## rg17

> Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against deploying troops in Iraq in 2003. Hillary voted for the Iraq War.
> 
> Sanders (and Ron Paul) voted against the so-called PATRIOT ACT. Sanders voted three times against the proposed extension of the Act in 2011. Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act.
> 
> Sanders has called for the decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level. Hillary's husband was one who helped install mandatory drug sentencing laws, eventually turning the US into the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Which fat cat bankers have donated money to the Sanders campaign, Gold Standard? Are there really any? OpenSecrets has a list of big campaign contributors to his campaign, and the contributors are steelworkers, carpenters, teachers, and nurses. Middle-class people. The banking industry does not seem to support him, or his proposal to offer some banking services in local post offices. It would cost big banks billions in lost transaction fees.



Bernie voted for the wars in the 90's.

----------


## TommyJeff

> I'm an independent voter who leans Libertarian in politics.


hard to believe if you are a Sanders supporter.    Libertarians believe in less govmenent and Sanders believes in more.  How does a person who "leans libertarian" (leaning for less government), support that big govmenent socialist.   Nice try lefty

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...there are several parts of Bernie Sanders' platform that overlap with my ideology, including Wall Street reform, anti-NAFTA, anti-CAFTA, anti-TPP and other trade agreements that harm US workers, he's against police authoritarianism, he's called for marijuana legalization at the state level,...voted against the PATRIOT Act, and voted against the war in Iraq.



Hmm, this Sanders person sounds anti-government to me.  

Are you anti-government?  Didn't I see you driving around east of the Oregon Cascades last week?

----------


## Unregistered

He seems to support wars when Democrats are in the white house. He supports Obama's policy in Syria as well. 
I'm not sure how any anti-war candidate could support the military action in Kosovo 
He also votes to fund everything. Including wars. 
On foreign policy he seems too easily pressured by hawks on the left.  Nothing like Ron paul

----------


## Rad

Hello, Unregistered, meet Antiwar.com: http://original.antiwar.com/chris_er...e-empires-pie/

----------


## unknown

You cant possibly support Sanders if you believe in freedom.

----------


## RJ Liberty

OP here. Rad, I know Antiwar dt cm. I remember the ACLU case with the $#@!ing FBI monitoring the owners of the website. That was complete government overreach, as usual. 


But that's a great link. It clearly states that, contrary to what some people here on Liberty Forest have stated, Sanders voted against both wars in Iraq. He voted to fund them, meaning our "boots on the ground" (who are soldiers, not shoes) received appropriate protection. It's not the fault of the soldiers that the War Hawks (Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Obama, etc) go to war. I'd want the same protection for my own children.


From the article: "It’s true that Bernie is probably better than George W. Bush, Barack Obama or any current presidential candidate on issues of foreign policy" Wow. Better than any current presidential candidate? Even better than Rand? Quite an endorsement from a Libertarian website!




Last night, Rand came in in fifth place in the Iowa Caucuses, and has won one delegate in the Iowa Republican Caucus. Sanders just won 21+ in the Democratic Caucus. It is more clear than ever that Rand cannot win. 


After last night, Sanders can win, and he will work on at least some of the following: repealing the NDAA, removing the "Patriot Act", ending federal prohibition on weed and leaving marijuana legalization to the states, breaking up the banks that are "too big to fail", removing NAFTA and/or derailing CAFTA, closing for-profit prisons, attempting to reform our country's broken criminal justice system, ending warrantless wiretapping, possibly auditing the Fed (yes, I know the original bill he passed was completely toothless), and, possibly, ending some of the ridiculous endless wars: the "War on Terror", the "War on Drugs", the War on XYZ. He doesn't need to be successful with all of these proposals for me to consider voting for him, at least in the primaries. I'd be happy with any five from the above.


I'll possibly vote for Johnson again in the general. Not sure yet.

----------


## osan

> You cant possibly support Sanders if you believe in freedom.


Sure he can.  To quote The Tick:




> _Isn't sanity really just a one trick pony, anyway? 
> 
> I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking! 
> 
> But when you're good and crazy…ooh hoo hoo hoo…the sky's the limit!_


_

_'Nuff said.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by unknown
> 
> 
> You cant possibly support Sanders if you believe in freedom.
> 
> 
> Sure he can.  To quote The Tick:
> 
> 
> ...


Let's just hope Sanders never gets the chance to spread his warm, buttery justice over the buns of the nation ...

----------


## LittleLightShining

I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for this sh*t should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.

----------


## osan

> I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for this sh*t should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.


This makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.  The reasoning here is reminiscent of the adage that basically says that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Sure, until he turns around and slits your throat in your sleep.

Honestly, I don't give a tinker's damn who wins.  It is of small consequence to the grander political scheme at play here.  Anyone who thinks that the overarching political agenda will be stopped due to OUR choices at the polls is smoking way too many banana peels.

Vote for Obama if it makes you happy.  There is a juggernaut in motion and it isn't amenable to braking actions as they exist in normal contexts.

The choice will be upon us one day to fight or fold.  Anyone believing otherwise is fooling themselves, methinks.

----------


## erowe1

I put the operative words of your post in bold.





> I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for *this sh*t* should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.


I have better things to do.

----------


## Todd

> I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for this sh*t should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.


Just can't do it.  Can't support a guy who's main calling is for "super duper infused" legalized theft.  

Good to see you around again.....

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for this sh*t should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.


Yep. They're polar opposites on many issues, but there are some overlapping interests as well. I don't know that I'll vote for Sanders in the general election (if he makes it that far), because I'm still thinking about voting for Johnson in the general, but I won't vote for Clinton 2, Bush 3, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina...

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I have better things to do.


 Me, too.




> Just can't do it.  Can't support a guy who's main calling is for "super duper infused" legalized theft.  
> 
> Good to see you around again.....


 Thanks  

I don't know if it's really all that different. The word "socialist" is as polarizing as the word "anarchist." We already have income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid... they are broken and breaking the people. Can Bernie fix it? I don't know. Is he ideal? Millions of fiscally conservative, creative, productive young people think so. (Solid demographic, very libertarian even if they don't call themselves that.) 




> Yep. They're polar opposites on many issues, but there are some overlapping interests as well. I don't know that I'll vote for Sanders in the general election (if he makes it that far), because I'm still thinking about voting for Johnson in the general, but I won't vote for Clinton 2, Bush 3, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina...


I won't tell you who to vote for or even to vote, RJ, but the overlap is significant enough for me. I've been in Vermont for 20 years. He's stood up for Vermonters and I think he does a good job representing his constituents. For the most part I think he's sincere.  He's no Ron Paul but he's stood alongside him enough times for me to consider his wider vision and give it a chance. Some things are going to happen no matter who is president. I think he would be better than anyone else out there right now.

----------


## Rad

> OP here. Rad, I know Antiwar dt cm. I remember the ACLU case with the $#@!ing FBI monitoring the owners of the website. That was complete government overreach, as usual. 
> 
> 
> But that's a great link. It clearly states that, contrary to what some people here on Liberty Forest have stated, Sanders voted against both wars in Iraq. He voted to fund them, meaning our "boots on the ground" (who are soldiers, not shoes) received appropriate protection. It's not the fault of the soldiers that the War Hawks (Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Obama, etc) go to war. I'd want the same protection for my own children.
> 
> 
> From the article: "It’s true that Bernie is probably better than George W. Bush, Barack Obama or any current presidential candidate on issues of foreign policy" Wow. Better than any current presidential candidate? Even better than Rand? Quite an endorsement from a Libertarian website!
> 
> 
> ...


Sanders is better than the rest now. Hillary needs to be denied her coronation!

----------


## Weston White

The establishment will place whoever they want into public office by manipulating the polls and manipulating voters, and the courts will aid in covering up the conspiracy.

----------


## angelatc

To the OP: $#@! off.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm fully in support of Bernie Sanders. I will vote for him. Anyone who ever uttered "End the Fed!" or put any energy whatsoever toward an audit and has any energy left for this sh*t should be supporting Bernie now that Rand is out, and using this opportunity to connect with Bernie supporters where we (Ron Paul supporters) overlap.


You live in Vermont, right?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> You live in Vermont, right?


Yep.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't know if it's really all that different. The word "socialist" is as polarizing as the word "anarchist." We already have income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid... they are broken and breaking the people. Can Bernie fix it? I don't know. Is he ideal? Millions of *fiscally conservative*, creative, productive young people think so. (Solid demographic, very libertarian even if they don't call themselves that.)


There is nothing fiscally-conservative about the Bern.  He wants to tax everyone into oblivion and expand the size and scope of the federal government.




> I won't tell you who to vote for or even to vote, RJ, but the overlap is significant enough for me. I've been in Vermont for 20 years. He's stood up for Vermonters and I think he does a good job representing his constituents. For the most part I think he's sincere.  He's no Ron Paul but he's stood alongside him enough times for me to consider his wider vision and give it a chance. Some things are going to happen no matter who is president. I think he would be better than anyone else out there right now.


Beyond possibly not wanting to start more wars, I see no overlap.

Bernie is a Communist.  A well-meaning Communist, probably.  But, still a Commie.  His hero is Fidel Castro.

----------


## LittleLightShining

Have a super-awesome day, LE

----------


## pcosmar

> There is nothing fiscally-conservative about the Bern.  He wants to tax everyone into oblivion and expand the size and scope of the federal government.
> 
> 
> Beyond possibly not wanting to start more wars, I see no overlap.
> 
> Bernie is a Communist.  A well-meaning Communist, probably.  But, still a Commie.  His hero is Fidel Castro.


Castro was never a Communist. He was an opportunist. He used US help and rhetoric when he got US aid to overthrow the country.

then he got Russian aid when the US turned on him. He became "Commie"

He is quite simply an authoritarian dictator. Really does not matter what drivel he spews.
Cuba is a socialist state.  could be a nice vacation spot for socialists from all over the world.

Like New York.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Thanks  
> 
> I don't know if it's really all that different. The word "socialist" is as polarizing as the word "anarchist." We already have income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid... they are broken and breaking the people. Can Bernie fix it? I don't know. Is he ideal? Millions of fiscally conservative, creative, productive young people think so. (Solid demographic, very libertarian even if they don't call themselves that.)


What evidence is there that fiscal conservatives of any demographic support Bernie Sanders?

----------


## Anti Federalist

If Bern would understand that gun rights are as critical as all other "civil rights", *maybe* we could talk.

But, just like Trump, that's a deal breaker, because if a candidate accepts the concept of "gun control", it illustrates a fatal flaw in the proper understanding of the relationship between a citizen and the government.

----------


## wmmonk

> If Bern would understand that gun rights are as critical as all other "civil rights", *maybe* we could talk.
> 
> But, just like Trump, that's a deal breaker, because if a candidate accepts the concept of "gun control", it illustrates a fatal flaw in the proper understanding of the relationship between a citizen and the government.


You don't trust your government?

----------


## TheTexan

> You don't trust your government?


I do.  Our government loves us and only wants to help us.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I won't tell you who to vote for or even to vote, RJ, but the overlap is significant enough for me. I've been in Vermont for 20 years. He's stood up for Vermonters and I think he does a good job representing his constituents. For the most part I think he's sincere.  He's no Ron Paul but he's stood alongside him enough times for me to consider his wider vision and give it a chance. Some things are going to happen no matter who is president. I think he would be better than anyone else out there right now.


Good to have the perspective of a Vermonter, LLS. I know Sanders has the highest approval rating of any senator, as judged by his own constituents: 83%. That means quite a lot when almost no-one approves of Congress in general. And Sanders' positions on legalizing marijuana, auditing the Fed, anti-NDAA, anti-"PATRIOT" Act, and opposing the Iraq War make me think he's the best candidate currently running in a major party.

Yet I suspect I will still vote Libertarian Party in the general. If they can get 5%, they get federal funding in the next election, which I want to see happen.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Sanders is better than the rest now. Hillary needs to be denied her coronation!


Hillary needs to be in jail, along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld... I'd settle for a really humiliating defeat in the primaries, though. I think it's starting to happen. On Tuesday, we'll know more.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> If Bern would understand that gun rights are as critical as all other "civil rights", *maybe* we could talk.
> 
> But, just like Trump, that's a deal breaker, because if a candidate accepts the concept of "gun control", it illustrates a fatal flaw in the proper understanding of the relationship between a citizen and the government.


I hear you. That's where it's interesting for me as a Vermonter. Historically he has been one of the better defenders of the 2nd Amendment-- not because he's a champion but because that was what his constituents wanted. Demographics are changing here which I'm sure plays a part in his position. What softens it for me is that he's not in the business of "taking rights away" and Vermont is a very rural state. Firearms have a place here and he has a record of respecting that. 




> Good to have the perspective of a Vermonter, LLS. I know Sanders has the highest approval rating of any senator, as judged by his own constituents: 83%. That means quite a lot when almost no-one approves of Congress in general. And Sanders' positions on legalizing marijuana, auditing the Fed, anti-NDAA, anti-"PATRIOT" Act, and opposing the Iraq War make me think he's the best candidate currently running in a major party.
> 
> Yet I suspect I will still vote Libertarian Party in the general. If they can get 5%, they get federal funding in the next election, which I want to see happen.


The people do love Bernie. The party does not. Major endorsements went to Hillary years ago. 

The LP will only get 5% if there is a concerted effort to get 5%. Your vote is yours to use or not. You'll do the right thing

----------


## Lucille

The quickest way for Leviathan to implode is to pile it on, so whatever.  #VoteForBern #LetItBurn

----------


## LittleLightShining

> What evidence is there that fiscal conservatives of any demographic support Bernie Sanders?


https://www.bing.com/search?q=fiscal...OPRTSD&pc=OPER Search term: fiscally conservative milennials

Reason breaks it down https://reason.com/poll/2014/07/10/5...te-for-a-socia

Millennial support for Bernie Sanders: https://www.bing.com/search?q=milenn...OPRTSD&pc=OPER

----------


## jmdrake

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.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> 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.


Same here. I want to see HRC humbled before the American people. I want to see Hillary begging for applause in the same way "Jeb!" has been: in half-empty meeting rooms. Bush and Clinton are two sides of the same coin, and I'm hoping the landslide results in New Hampshire (currently 60% Bernie, 39% Hillary) are a sign of her campaign beginning to circle the drain, as the American people reject the Bush/Clinton monarchy that has held its grip on the US since $#@!ing 1988. But that remains to be seen.




> When this thread was started Rand was still in the race and the Iowa disaster had not happened.


The Iowa disaster was already in full swing. By December, Rand was already polling at 1-3% in the state, and had been given actual _storage space_ for his green room for debate prep. Yet here on RPF, people still believed there were 10,000 Rand volunteers in the state. There's nothing wrong with being _optimistic_, but the math didn't add up, in a state with only 200,000 Republican caucus-goers. Rand had no ground game, and by December it was obvious.




> Imagine Paul Ryan having to explain why he's giving a *socialist* more power to spy on the American people.


Sanders is running on a campaign to end or curb the domestic spying programs. No idea if he'd be successful, but a Sanders win seems unlikely to lead to _more_ spying. Besides, what's left? closed-circuit TV cameras installed in every citizen's house?




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


His agenda includes legalizing marijuana at the federal level and letting states decide, ending domestic surveillance programs, and reforming the corrupt prison system. If he could get those parts of his agenda passed, this country would be on the right path to liberty. Not sure it will happen, but to say that "any part of his agenda" being passed would be bad is, IMO, mistaken.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I hear you. That's where it's interesting for me as a Vermonter. Historically he has been one of the better defenders of the 2nd Amendment-- not because he's a champion but because that was what his constituents wanted. Demographics are changing here which I'm sure plays a part in his position. What softens it for me is that he's not in the business of "taking rights away" and Vermont is a very rural state. Firearms have a place here and he has a record of respecting that.


He does, but at the same time, he's been under pressure from the left to re-examine his pro-gun votes. So, we'll see what happens.




> The people do love Bernie. The party does not. Major endorsements went to Hillary years ago.


Indeed. Eight years ago, I believe.




> The LP will only get 5% if there is a concerted effort to get 5%.


And probably not even then. But I think it's possible, with grassroots support.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Bernie Is Not a Socialist*

https://www.lewrockwell.com/politica...not-socialist/

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

February 10, 2016

Not even a democratic one, since he does not advocate state ownership of the means of production. He is an unapologetic Keynesian redistributionist and state expander, no different in substance from FDR, LBJ, Nixon, George W. Bush, Obama, and the rest of that evil crew. 

He’s as American as apple pie.

----------


## LittleLightShining

I know. You're right, AF. I didn't read the article, I don't have to. 

If there was someone better I would vote, maybe even work for him/her. Mark Cuban's getting louder. Not that I know much about him. I've watched Shark Tank. He's way better than Trump and none of the other guys is gonna win a a general election against Bernie or Clinton. I just don't see it. I'm already down for Kanye 2020. I don't even care what his policies would be. (That's not true, but he would be a showstopper.)

If Bernie could wave a magic wand I do think quality of life for most people would improve. I've noticed that people get stressed out and do all kinds of things when they can't pay the bills. I don't think it's right to squeeze people until they have nothing left and then on top of it push the kids through an indoctrination system that saddles them both with debt. It makes no sense. That is the reality for entire generation of Americans. I don't want my kids and grandkids to be debt-slaves to an archaic system. Might as well #LetItBern. If quality of life improves for more Americans without undue burden and hardship on people, all the better.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I know. You're right, AF. I didn't read the article, I don't have to. 
> 
> If there was someone better I would vote, maybe even work for him/her. Mark Cuban's getting louder. Not that I know much about him. I've watched Shark Tank. He's way better than Trump and none of the other guys is gonna win a a general election against Bernie or Clinton. I just don't see it. I'm already down for Kanye 2020. I don't even care what his policies would be. (That's not true, but he would be a showstopper.)
> 
> If Bernie could wave a magic wand I do think quality of life for most people would improve. I've noticed that people get stressed out and do all kinds of things when they can't pay the bills. I don't think it's right to squeeze people until they have nothing left and then on top of it push the kids through an indoctrination system that saddles them both with debt. It makes no sense. That is the reality for entire generation of Americans. *I don't want my kids and grandkids to be debt-slaves to an archaic system.* Might as well #LetItBern. If quality of life improves for more Americans without undue burden and hardship on people, all the better.


From a much larger article at Mises.com:

*This fact also illustrates how elections are useless in reforming the government if not preceded by an ideological change. The fact is that ideologically, Americans are greatly in favor of a big-spending government. The politicians who want to get elected are well aware of this, and act accordingly. If we want smaller government, we’d have to convince at least a sizable minority that it’s a good thing. But until that changes, don’t look for the next eight-year period to be much different from all the other ones in living memory.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...n/#more-578199*

I think that is what will drive Bern or Trump.

I just can't find it in me to get excited over any of this.

The establishment is awful, so there is nothing there for me.

The "anti establishment" choices being offered both have some fatal flaws, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm writing in Ron Paul, and I think, right now, will be *hoping* for The Bern with a Congress still in GOP control.

Vain hope, looking at the polling. Once out of NH, it appears Clinton will roll over Sanders by double digits.

I miss your "Don't Tread on Me" Hello Kitty btw.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Had a long talk with my 16 y/o son at dinner last night about this:

"Dad, Bernie sounds an awful lot like you, a lot of the things he says, you say, especially about police and prisons and government spying."

The upshot of my answer was the Bern is right on two legs of the platform, but is wrong on economics.

----------


## unknown

> Had a long talk with my 16 y/o son at dinner last night about this:
> 
> "Dad, Bernie sounds an awful lot like you, a lot of the things he says, you say, especially about police and prisons and government spying."
> 
> The upshot of my answer was the Bern is right on two legs of the platform, but is wrong on economics.


Acknowledged, he has a couple good Ron Paul-ish ideas (literally two) but thats where the similarities end.  

He is basically a polar opposite of Ron Paul in every other regard.  

Not saying anyone else is better.  Now that Rand is out, theyre all $#@!.

Tired of people (not you Anti Federalist) comparing Sanders to Ron Paul.

The $#@! couldnt even come thru on the Fed audit Bill:

Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Acknowledged, he has a couple good Ron Paul-ish ideas (literally two) but thats where the similarities end.  
> 
> He is basically a polar opposite of Ron Paul in every other regard.  
> 
> Not saying anyone else is better.  Now that Rand is out, theyre all $#@!.
> 
> Tired of people (not you Anti Federalist) comparing Sanders to Ron Paul.
> 
> The $#@! couldnt even come thru on the Fed audit Bill:
> ...


Ronald Reagan described the "three legs of conservatism" thusly:

Social.

Economic.

National Security.

Those three can also be used to describe a libertarian position.

I would say Bern is not bad on item one and three.

He is terrible on item two.

ETA - Meh. After looking over his "official" position page at his website, there is nothing on there about NSA spying, or Snowden, or the Bill of Rights, or asset forfeiture, or ending the drug war, or prison reform, but rather just a bunch of blah blah blah about ***** and colored "equality" and boat loads of free stuff.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

----------


## The Gold Standard

> ETA - Meh. After looking over his "official" position page at his website, there is nothing on there about NSA spying, or Snowden, or the Bill of Rights, or asset forfeiture, or ending the drug war, or prison reform, but rather just a bunch of blah blah blah about ***** and colored "equality" and boat loads of free stuff.


He sounds better than the other candidates about those things because they like how things are now. But Bernie isn't Ron Paul. There will still be NSA spying, just on the groups he doesn't like. He doesn't know what the Bill of Rights says or means any more than the others do. He won't be ending the police state. He will need it to hunt down the tax money for his ridiculous government programs.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment.


I remember pretty clearly watching C-SPAN when all of this went down, and as I remember it, the Senate didn't have the votes to pass the bill the way that it was because Democrats were receiving enormous pressure since the Fed and the White House felt that one of the amendments would compromise the Fed's ability to remain independent (think of that what you will).  That's why Sanders modified the amendment to ensure that they got at least a partial audit.  Otherwise, it would have been dead in the water and would've never passed at all.

Actually, here's an article about it: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96...ring-fed-audit

----------


## otherone

> Had a long talk with my 16 y/o son at dinner last night about this:


Another snowflake radicalized.
Report to room 101, comrade.

----------


## Cabal

> Had a long talk with my 16 y/o son at dinner last night about this:
> 
> "Dad, Bernie sounds an awful lot like you, a lot of the things he says, you say, especially about police and prisons and government spying."
> 
> The upshot of my answer was the Bern is right on two legs of the platform, but is wrong on economics.


Bernie Sanders is able to identify some of the bad symptoms of the current state of things fairly correctly (e.g. cronyism and corruption, growing wealth inequality, economic stagnation, college debt, etc.). Unfortunately, whether through his own ignorance, delusions of grandeur, or intellectual dishonesty, he seems to completely lack the capacity to identify the actual root cause of these symptoms, and then goes on to misdiagnose them with prescriptions that would not only miserably fail to correct these issues, but in all likelihood, make them exceedingly worse.

Also, his ideas of 'rights' is fubar.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Ronald Reagan described the "three legs of conservatism" thusly:
> 
> Social.
> 
> Economic.
> 
> National Security.
> 
> Those three can also be used to describe a libertarian position.
> ...


It's cool you are open-minded enough to check out his campaign positions (not everyone here would be so willing). So, hat's off to you. There's actually plenty about NSA spying, ending the drug war, prison reform, and other Libertarian positions on the "issues" page, when you click on the links on that page:

From https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/ :

Sanders warns against the Military Industrial Complex:




> And while there is no question our military must be fully prepared and have the resources it needs to fight international terrorism, it is imperative that we take a hard look at the Pentagons budget and the priorities it has established. The U.S. military must be equipped to fight todays battles, not those of the last war, much less the Cold War. Our defense budget must represent our national security interests and the needs of our military, not the reelection of members of Congress or the profits of defense contractors. The warning that President Dwight David Eisenhower gave us about the influence of the Military-Industrial Complex in 1961 is truer today than it was then.


Repealing so-called "PATRIOT" Act, rein in the NSA, anti-torture, close Guantanamo:




> That is why Sen. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act when it was first passed, why he voted against the Patriot Act when it was renewed, and why he opposed the so-called USA Freedom Act this past spring. We must not trade away our constitutional rights and civil liberties for the illusion of security.
> 
> Instead, we must rein in the National Security Agency and end the bulk collection of phone records, internet history, and email data of virtually all Americans.Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must have the tools they need to protect the American people, but there must be legal oversight and they must go about their work in a way that does not sacrifice our basic freedoms.
> 
> The same goes for our actions abroad. The U.S. must never again embrace torture as a matter of official policy. In an increasingly brutal world, the wanton use of torture by the Bush administration simply meant we lost our moral standing to condemn others who engage in merciless behavior. That is why Sen. Sanders has consistently spoken out against waterboarding and other forms of extreme enhanced interrogation.
> 
> We must also, finally, close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The mere existence of this camp, and the misguided policies that led to its creation, continues to damage the United States moral standing in the world, undermines our foreign policy, and fans the flames of terrorism rather than deters it.


From https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/ :

On law enforcement brutality/overreach:




> A growing number of communities do not trust the police. Law enforcement officers have become disconnected from the communities they are sworn to protect. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of the police meant to protect and serve our communities, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. We need a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and racism will not be accepted in a civilized country.
> 
>     We must demilitarize our police forces so they dont look and act like invading armies.
>     We must invest in community policing. Only when we get officers into the communities, working within neighborhoods before trouble arises, do we develop the relationships necessary to make our communities safer together. Among other things, that means increasing civilian oversight of police departments.
>     We must create a police culture that allows for good officers to report the actions of bad officers without fear of retaliation and allows for a department to follow through on such reports.
>     We need police forces that reflect the diversity of our communities, including in the training academies and leadership.
>     At the federal level, we need to establish a new model police training program that reorients the way we do law enforcement in this country. With input from a broad segment of the community including activists and leaders from civil rights organizations we will reinvent how we police America.
>     We need to federally fund and require body cameras for law enforcement officers to make it easier to hold them accountable.
>     We need to require police departments and states to collect data on all police shootings and deaths that take place while in police custody and make that data public.


On the failed "War on Drugs" and for-profit prisons:




> We need to ban prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain in order to keep prison beds full.
> We need to turn back from the failed War on Drugs and eliminate mandatory minimums which result in sentencing disparities between black and white people.
> We need to take marijuana off the federal governments list of outlawed drugs.
> We need to allow people in states which legalize marijuana to be able to fully participate in the banking system and not be subject to federal prosecution for using pot.
> We need to invest in drug courts and medical and mental health interventions for people with substance abuse problems, so that they do not end up in prison, they end up in treatment.

----------


## RicheyG

> Anyone else here supporting Bernie Sanders?


I reply to this question with this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7fCQlUhj0

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Sanders represents the same old crap from progressives who want to reign in government in one area, but expand it in other areas.  He is either obtuse or disingenuous.

He is no different from "conservatives" where I live.  These "small government" cons advocate for big law enforcement and military spending, but then are puzzled as to why that same government wants to heavily regulate their firearms.  People in my area fail to see patterns.  Sanders is the same, but wrapped in a different package. 

The government that you advocate today is the government that comes back to bite you tomorrow.  The Frankenstein you build is the monster that you get.

----------

