Bernie Sanders Is The Most Dangerous Man In America

I’ve never feared for my safety quite like I did yesterday. I have been beaten, kidnapped, and shot at before. I’ve had my gun pointed at a man’s chest when police showed up. I’ve live streamed a riot where drunken lunatics flipped cars and screamed “Fuck the press!”. I’ve been involved in some pretty precarious situations, but none were ever quite so frightening as watching 73 year old Bernie Sanders whip hundreds of radical leftists into a frenzy yesterday in Keene, New Hampshire. That might sound a bit hyperbolic, but I’m dead serious.

Bernie Sanders Is The Most Dangerous Man In America

Bernie Sanders Is The Most Dangerous Man In America

The Vermont Senator is running for President as a Democrat, and near everyone has dismissed him as a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. He has been referred to by some as “the Ron Paul of the left”. He’s no Ron Paul by any informed person’s measure, but I too thought of him as little more than a political anomaly that could only come from a place like Vermont. Until yesterday, that is. 

I’ve never paid much attention to Sanders. In a handful of television appearances, he just seemed like a cagey, quirky guy with some really bad economic ideas. That wasn’t who showed up to the recreation center on Washington Street in Keene yesterday though.

Sanders is actually one of the best orators I’ve ever been in the presence of. He speaks with passion, conviction, and skill. His timing, his change of speed and intonation, and his use of humor, allow him to connect with an audience like very few people can. He’s very personable. Most people don’t call him Senator or Mr. Sanders, they call him Bernie. He approaches everyone with a smile and a humble friendly demeanor, at least, until they challenge him. He’s so good at all of this, that he even manages to charm a considerable number of libertarians who, despite their disagreement with his radical economic agenda, are convinced he at least means well.

He uses that talent to tap into the most vile regions of the human psyche, and stir up that irrational fury that has sent so many societies spiraling into the depths of communism, suffering, and death. To hear him tell it, the solution to all our problems is so simple and obvious that the mind is repelled. The answer? Well, just have the government pay for everything, of course. How to pay for it? By taking money from the wealthiest people in the society.  And why wouldn’t we? According to Sanders “we” are the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind, “we” have every bit as much a right to those resources as the people who earned them, why should “we” let “THEM” have exclusive access to all that wealth? That’s his whole entire message “we” should take it from “THEM“, the “millionaires and billionaires” a phrase he throws around as a pejorative, like a racist might use a derogatory epithet.

Unlike his nearer to the center Democratic counterparts, Sanders makes no effort to moderate this message. The concept of private property never even enters the picture for him. There was literally not a single portion of his address yesterday that did not advocate the expansion or creation of some federal program.

Yet, despite nearly all Americans losing faith in the federal government, he received standing ovations on nearly every talking point. From raising taxes, to income inequality, to global warming, every last issue was a condemnation of wealth, and a call for government control, and the standing room only audience I was among couldn’t have been happier to hand him any power he might ask for.

That is quite concerning when you’re as prone to contradiction as a man like Bernie Sanders is. He complains simultaneously that the minimum wage is too low, and that unemployment is too high, as if there is no correlation between the two. He complains simultaneously about people being jailed for victimless crimes, and that taxes are too low, as if taxes were not collected by threat of incarceration. He says during one portion of his address, that even if we disagree we should be open to discussion, then in another, that people should not negotiate with anyone who wants to cut any government program ever.

Put all of that together and you’ve got quite the political powder keg. A charismatic leader, not open to compromise, who stokes the fires of envy, expands government power, and has no attachment to reason. A devoted people willing to hand him complete control over all their lives, and the lives of others, regardless of whether or not what he says makes any sense. Even if you think he can’t get elected, and I’m not as certain of that as I once was, but even if he can’t, he’s still incredibly dangerous.

People who are convinced they have an absolute right to the property of others, aren’t interested in reason, debate, or compromise, and are willing to use the violence of the State to carry out their will, are only degrees away from resorting to violence on their own. That’s what you saw in Ferguson and Baltimore, and Bernie Sanders means to create armies of these incoherent radicals from coast to coast.

Bernie Sanders doesn’t have to get elected to set the world ablaze, the fires are already lit, and Bernie Sanders is travelling the country with an abundance of gasoline to pour on the flames.

Here’s the full video of him dodging our questions, and addressing the crowd of rabid supporters.

 

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

 

  • 777American

    I find this article to have excellent content with the observation to have concern of taking private money from the billionaires is tempered by the fact that many of the billionaires did not earn their money but rather stole it from the American public by having people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulate federal policy to allow the American treasury to be raided under our noses. Those are the billionaires that should not only have every penny of their wealth confiscated but be put in jail for life for collaborating on 9/11 and many other atrocities committed against this great nation.

    • marlene

      SPOT ON.

    • Rusty

      So you admit that it was the government who enabled these people to be billionaires? And the thought of a vastly bigger government (one that is already known to play for these billionaires) doesn’t strike you as ignorantly psychotic?

      • MrTonyD

        The billionaires have purchased both the Republicans and the Democrats. We need to get our government back from them – so that it can do useful things for our entire society.

        • Sam Cru

          How naive…

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            It’s not naive to think you can get ahead if you have the corporations boot on your throat while handing him the gun of government control to finish you off. If the people don’t get control of THEIR own government(you know of/by/for people) then the corporate multinationals and their billionaire owners/board members will have full control of the market and the government. How is that better?

          • Sam Cru

            How naive…

        • How naive.

      • Huh? The billionaires play for the government, not the other way around. The lion’s share of the government’s revenue comes from the very rich.

    • dsaulw

      If certain people stole their money via federal policy, then Sanders should advise that we go after them through the legal system and get it back. Don’t just indiscriminately expropriate wealthy people, some of whom earned their money honestly and contributed greatly to society.

      • MrTonyD

        I’m at the point where I consider it immoral to be wealthy. It wouldn’t be, except that the wealthy have many billions that they hide offshore and away from taxes, while others struggle to keep themselves clothed and fed. The rich have made themselves the problem.

        • Ken Flago

          You’re right. We should strip to the bone people like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk. Thomas Edisson or Richard Branson. Who needs light bulbs, iphones, electric cars or cheap flights? Nobody. We want to make sure nobody else starts a billion dollar venture again. How dare they provide value to others!!?

          • MrTonyD

            I worked for Steve Jobs. He was completely non-technical – there were many times when I tried to explain what Engineering was doing (Steve still didn’t really understand.) Steve hid the bulk of his wealth offshore and away from taxes. Steve got his products from University research. Why do you only know Steve’s name, and not the names of the people who invented all the technology? Because Steve is the multi-billionaire who made himself rich off their work.

            If we funded startups we would have much more innovation – instead of just the innovation that Steve and Bill thought was worth stealing.

          • Ken Flago

            So what if he was non-technical? He’s the one who convinced Wozniak to package and sell their first computers. Apple would not have existed without Jobs. He even saved the company in the late 90s. The Apple employees also made a lot of money.

            What is your problem with successful people? Do you hate all billionaire startup founders too?

          • MrTonyD

            Well, he made billions from others work while most of them made just a salary. Most people consider that immoral. But I guess you don’t.

          • dfasfgl

            People have different wants and needs. Even the same person has different needs at different times in life. My father only ever wanted the security of a weekly pay check for a weeks work while he was young and raising a family. He never wanted to be an owner or risk what he had earned. Later when the kids went off to college, he changed. He decided to start his own business because it was less physically demanding and it was exciting.
            Neither is immoral. When he sold his labor his main risk was that the boss wouldn’t pay him at the end of each pay period. When he became an owner he risked a lot more in exchange for potential profits. Both are honest ways of making a living.

          • MrTonyD

            I worked for Steve, and your story doesn’t really describe the situation at all. Everybody who worked there would have preferred to get a real share of the incredible hidden profits (that Steve and the other executives were secretly hiding offshore pre-tax.) And part of Steve’s “pitch” to get employees was that they had to work for either Steve or Bill – since they controlled the distribution channels for software and hardware. And Steve and Bill met regularly in secret to kill any competitors and divide up market segments to keep prices high (Bill could have gotten schools anytime, but he left that for Steve. Steve killed any office-type products before they could get a foothold.) And I have lots more stories – this is not moral or “an honest way to make a living”.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            You’re getting warmer. You’re getting closer to the true “bad guy” in this story. And it’s not Steve Jobs.

            It’s not being rich. It’s not holding onto a lot of stock. It’s not self-interest. It’s the unfair advantages that state involvement in these markets puts onto the table. Advantages like patents, crony trade deals, labor and immigration laws, wireless spectrum regulation and scarcity, fundraising restrictions. All of which render the business environment in key high-tech segments hostile to smaller, less connected players in favor of larger, better connected ones. I.e. render the space oligopolistic. Oligopolists, like monopolists, often behave badly simply because they can. They face no consequences for doing so.

            Without state distortions of the free market, Bill or Steve would have found themselves unable to get away with behaving abusively or cavalierly to employees or customers for an instant. A truly free market would have provided fecund soil for an unending stream of thousands of smaller high-tech competitors to arise to keep Bill and Steve honest. These competitors would relentlessly circle and attack, drawn like moths to the flame of Apple and Microsoft’s ridiculously lucrative profit stream. They would exploit even the smallest employee abuses by Steve or Bill hiring away undervalued talent with better compensation packages. They would capitalize on the smallest hiccup in optimally catering to customer needs.

            In this case, don’t hate the player, hate the game. When tracking down abusiveness, go to the root cause.

          • MrTonyD

            Well, we sort-of agree. But I would point out that those “state distortions of the free market” are the distortions caused by Steve, Bill, and the other rich executives that I’ve worked for. They all entertained and funded Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Presidental Candidates and many members of Congress. We have the government that the rich have created.

            Of course, they tried to keep most of this secret. But once you got to know people in their circle you would hear about private dinners with Bill Clinton or George Bush – and all the funding they were arranging for candidates.

            So I guess we disagree about the root cause – the root cause is the greed and immorality of the rich.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            You are very, very close to the truth. Just a smidgeon off. You are right Jobs and Gates embraced state privilege and did nothing to oppose it. For this specific set of behaviors, particularly the absence of opposition to state interventions, you may condemn them along with me. But greed and productive acts expressed as earned wealth, Horatio Alger style, is purely moral. And there was plenty of that in Jobs and Gates as well.

            Your statements seem to overlook that richness does not _necessarily_ connote immorality, i.e. use of the state (though commonly does in the modern day statist economy). The whole question, the only question, is how did one get to be that way, what was the context, what were the adjunct actions, if any. This is where the locus of judgement should pivot.

          • MrTonyD

            Well, we can disagree. But I would argue that wealth is immoral. It isn’t intrinsically immoral, but it is immoral to have millions and millions of dollars while other people struggle to survive. It is having wealth in the context of suffering which is immoral.

            And all that “state injustice” was created by the rich – they created the laws making it legal to hide money offshore, hide inheritance in trusts, extract money from their corporations without taxation, reduce services, arrange for society to fund their research, increase taxation on everyone else, reduce their own taxes. And then they buy journalists and researchers to tell us that they are the ones being oppressed. I’ve spent plenty of time around billionaires – believe me, they are anything but oppressed. They are mostly just greedy and uncaring.

          • That last comment circles back to envy: why should THEY have all that money while some people can’t survive? That must be fixed by MORE GOVERNMENT!

            Instead of giving my own money to charities serving the poor or helping the poor get jobs (either works), let’s steal the money of the millionaires and billionaires and give it to people to buy their votes!

        • Randall Knapp

          Can we just rename you Wesley Mouch?

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            Intelligent, poignant and completely relavant personal attack.. Well done, you have swayed me to become a corporatist apologizer too. Please tell me how to properly lick the boots of my oppressors.

          • Sweetie, a company cannot force you to buy their product or punish you for not buying their product. They can make your life worse by getting in bed with the government, but they alone can do nothing coercive. The root of the problem is the government.

            I don’t need to tell you how to properly lick the boots of your oppressors. You already are: you’re licking the jackboots of the state.

        • CD

          It’s immoral to not want to be stolen from? Very interesting set of morals.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      The two wrongs wouldn’t align to a right. If the billionaires’ stolen wealth were confiscated, would it be returned to its rightful owners? Or just transferred to a larger number of smaller thieves? Sanders and his audience are clamoring for a systematic ideological disregard of private property. A far worse evil than property thefts.

      • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

        Just like republican Dwight Eisenhower did with his 91% top marginal tax rates… they still had and made new millionaires in the 50’s while building schools, interstates and other infrastructure. Why did these successful people still work to get such a smaller share of private property after a certain income level?(hit, it wasn’t disregarding private property) Didn’t that tax rate dis-incentivize these people into not moving forward to keep working? Why did income gains at the time spread equally across all quintiles? Why won’t it work again?

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          vs. what. You are committing the fallacy of the seen vs. the unseen when looking at Eisenhower era economic outcomes, declaring, “It’s not so bad.” You have no visibility into what that same era would have looked like without the higher tax rates.

          Your claim that higher tax rates don’t matter is only true if the severity of property rights violations doesn’t matter which is only true if property rights don’t matter at all. It implies that financial incentives don’t matter to humans. It implies take-home pay and after tax returns do not influence the relative amount of personal time, energy, and capital people invest in high vs. low vs. no tax endeavors. This is all contrary to observed fact and reason.

          Traditional U.S. liberal ideologues advocate higher tax rates on the basis of selectively focusing on the wonderful “free” government stuff that extra money could be spent on while ignoring the opportunity costs of taking the money from its owners. Essentially attempting an ends-justifies-the-means justification for theft.

          According to Chris, Sanders said something like, “’we’ have every bit as much a right to those resources as the people who earned them.” Here Sanders directly attacks the fundamental legitimacy of earned wealth in the first place. He denies the concept of private property outright. He essentially says taxation doesn’t need to be justified because everyone’s stuff already belongs to everyone else. This is categorically far beyond traditional U.S. left-wing ideology, beyond socialist ideology, and falls square into communism.

          Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

          • Bob

            The “free government stuff” is the Fire Department, Highways and Bridges, schools, police, and other essentials. Ronald Reagan did something excellent in his first term; he sent tax surplus back to the states in the form of a block grant. This lowered local taxes for the “free government stuff” and allowed struggling cities and towns to hold on to a decent quality of life and not raise taxes. As excellent as this act was, it is a band aid to give the “job creators” an opportunity to build locally.
            Unfortunately, the jobs were outsourced, and illegal immigration lowers wages for jobs that once could support a family (and a natural free market), the nation allows “free stuff” to prevent a revolt. That is not just rhetoric, imagine the increase of homeless and hungry people in the street that cannot survive on the wages for work. 1 in 5 children grow up in poverty, 670K are homeless now.
            The answer isn’t socialism or communism. The answer is good jobs. But, when multinational corporations are allowed access to tax breaks, outsourcing, illegal (or visa protected) labor and a wage that forces families to apply for free stuff or their children go hungry, that is the problem. The federal giveaways to the food lobby, bank lobby, military lobby, etc. are the problem. They have purchased our government and divided the country into liberals and conservatives. Because of this fact, the people choose a side and demonize anything said that is counter to “brand” you have chosen, even when you realize that they have all been bought with a price!
            Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, they are all drinking from the same well to keep their jobs. As they say in Texas, They ride for the brand. There is $21T in offshore accounts, a corporation that has 20% of their business in another country pays 0 corporate tax, and the great and wonderful Apple builds their products in Chinese factories where the workers routinely commit suicide and have nets outside to catch the bodies. Does that sound like free market capitalism? Does the great and wonderful Apple sell you products at a discounted rate because the labor is so cheap? No, they spend on marketing to make you believe that they are wonderful and making the world a better place. This subtle psychological manipulation works effectively and it is the standard for all your favorite companies. The tide is turning, McDonald’s is getting slammed as of late, people are choosing Costco over Wal Mart, when possible. But, Wal Mart leads in the SNAP and EBT crowd.
            Be afraid of Bernie Sanders. Say he is like Hugo Chavez or Putin. Chavez took over Venezuelan oil and used it as a slush fund for freebies. Do you think that one man could do that in America? C’mon, man! Bernie Sanders owns a home, he is against private property? Instead of doing the work of politicians that give away pension funds for election help and sent most of the manufacturing jobs to countries that abuse their people, become objective. Look at the outcomes of a market-driven, quarterly profit driven economy. Do your homework, unplug from the Matrix, and become a critical thinker with ideas and skills to easily discern the times.

    • LeftRight

      Hear! Hear!

    • The rich did not steal money. They created their wealth or had someone choose to give it to them (inheritance).

      During Cheney’s years as Vice President, the rich paid the lion’s share in taxes…. not taking from the treasury, but filling it.

      You have no idea what you are talking about, especially with 9/11. Do you blame the Jews too?

  • IRONMANAustralia

    You should have just mugged the fucker in the parking lot and told him you were going to redistribute the money in his wallet to the poor.

    I’m sure he’d be okay with that.

    • For those of the Sanders’ persuasion robbing is only OK if the government does it. Robbery by government is GOOD.

      • Nathaniel Møøre

        You pretend like its not already happening. Bernie just wants to steal from people who can afford to be stolen from. – like the companies who pay no taxes and outsource their labor.

        • How about no stealing?

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            Good luck with that, the corporations have already legalized most of the stealing that results in upward wealth redistribution. almost every cent of income gains since Obama was elected have gone to the top 1% while productivity rose… so those workers would like back some of their stolen money.

          • If that’s true, why are you assuming that the rich made their extra money at the expense of everyone else?

            What’s the process by which the money was stolen?

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            The process was rising productivity and stagnant wages since 1979, due to changes in policy. If wages are flat and Productivity rises, corporate profits rise and stocks go up. CEO’s and other high executives are paid mostly in stock, which gains on are taxed at a lower rate than wages. On top of that top rates for actual wages are much lower than they were when wages and productivity rose together(’35-’80).

            So, basically all the wage growth for the 99% that should have occurred had we left a working system in place since 1979, is theft by the 1% and should be taxed back into the system to be helpful for all of us.

            You libertarian unicorn hunters keep saying we havent ever seen what a truly open free market is and how it could work if we would just experiment with it more, it’ll work. To me that sounds just like going to communism. It didn’t work and has never been tried ‘purely’ correctly either, but I don’t want to go there. What I am asking for are policies close to those that built the middle class once before. We are saying, ‘got a headache? take some aspirin”

          • You’re assuming wages are stagnant… what’s the evidence?

            Google “Stagnant Wages: Fact or Fiction?” It has a good summary on why people believe this even though there’s good reasons to think otherwise (ie. wages continue to slowly increase).

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            Sorry for the delay. I’m talking about wages decoupling from productivity. Wages still rise extremely slowly as you note. Productivity never slowed down after wages stopped keeping up in the late 70s

          • most people don’t work for corporations but for smaller companies … explain that!

          • Grero: I found a good chart of stagnant wages…. from a leftist outfit called the EPI that wants to micro-manage what companies pay people, of all places.

            It undermined its big anti-Reagan case when its own chart showed that so called wage stagnation began in 1973, Before free-and-fair trade, before Reagan… Long before, in fact.

          • Adam Hoisington

            In other words, “Government isn’t stealing people’s money fairly.”

            There is no reasoning with people who are as morally bankrupt as you are.

          • Exactly. This person calls the withholding of unearned free handouts “theft”.

            You didn’t give me your car = you stole it from me.

          • sth_txs

            If you really want policies that build a middle class, then repeal every law passed since 1912. Excessive taxation and inflation with funny money has not helped anyone.

            Cut the military back to defense and a number of other welfare/warfare programs and it could exist once again.

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            There wasn’t ever a big middle class before 1912, so I don’t see how that helps. The middle class didn’t grow until after FDR era Congress regulated and taxed us into more economic stability and pro wage growth policy. Still made millionaires under these policies too, so it must not have punished success. All quintiles wages grew in fairly equal percentages.

          • Yet your description contains no theft. Any theft is purely imagined by you.

            You imagine that workers deserve an unearned handout. Refusing to shovel out unearned handouts is not theft.

          • You’ve not described anything like “theft”.

          • Luc.g

            you are historically and factually correct.

          • Matt Vrvilo

            well put, thank you 🙂

          • Grero: you are dealing with the claim of the lazy and greedy. Indolent slobs look at those who get up and do hard work and earn $$$$ as a result as having “stolen” it, and said indolent slobs then feel entitled to the fruits of others’ efforts.

            It’s the ants and the grasshopper.

          • Daniel Stone

            no your wrong. no environment exists in the us that will allow “Indolent slobs” to get out of the hole they are in no matter how hard they work. you can work as hard as you want at $7.25 an hour and youre still going to be living in poverty.

          • Daniel Stone

            the process. just the top corporations gave over 300 billion in political contributions. they got back 62 trillion in tax breaks. thats a 2000% gain on investment. also thats 62 trillion they could afford to pay they just didnt want to. just as an example it would cost around 100 billion to give kids free state college tuition, a drop in the bucket compared to 62 trillion. another example, the us spends 152 billion a year on welfare programs and those on the right argue that its too much while once again giving corporations 62 trillion in welfare.

          • There is no upward wealth distribution. Other than to the government, that is.

            “so those workers would like back some of their stolen money.”

            The only money that was stolen is tax money. The government giving some back sounds good.

          • All the wealth distribution goes down from those who make $$$ by earning it to those who don’t earn it and don’t have as much. It does not go up.

            “so those workers would like back some of their stolen money”

            You have no evidence of anything stolen, other than tax money taken..

        • They outsource their labor because they are forced to.
          Sanders wants to increase taxes and regulations which will force a lot more outsourcing.

          As for companies, the taxes, they pay are more than in most other countries. If he increases the overtaxation, watch for even more outsourcing.

          • Lebez

            “They outsource their labor because they are forced to.” Bullshit. Trickle down much?

          • A trashy profane comment, and you lied too.

          • You fail to realize the fact that punishing companies for doing business and employing workers in America makes them go to countries where they can do both without being clobbered for it.

        • They only outsource their labor because bad regulations and overtaxation force them to. Besides, it’s not a big deal: all it is, is the companies hiring the best workers for the job.

    • Davy Goossens

      communism and leftism is nothing more than envy as politics.

      • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

        Yes, I am jealous of my Grandparents generation for figuring out how to let the rich be taxed at a rate and regulated in a manner that a huge middle class could arise. I am jealous of my middle class Grandparents generation and their will to run the government in a way that benefited almost everyone.

        • Davy Goossens

          government always destroys and steals.

          • Lebez

            Beware of bifurcation. Your claim is a lie.

          • I fact checked his comment. Um… it is very true.

          • Congratulations! You have proved you are more qualified for office than all Democrats, and most Republicans.

    • Daniel Stone

      yeah exactly the same way the rich rob the poor of wealth! we need to keep this socialist system that is redistributing tax dollars to the ultra wealthy. its going great! 300 billion in political contributions turned into 62 trillion in tax breaks! keep those tax dollars going to the most wealthy! these liberals say our kids need money for education? screw that corporations need 62 trillion in corporate wellfare! lets keep the gravy train rolling!

  • marlene

    It’s the oratory that gets a leftist every time and is the main reason they elect the wrong candidate – every time. I’ve subscribed to sanders’ emails for quite awhile now just to see if the snake is as slimy as he seems. Yes, he is and that’s what makes him dangerous.

    • IRONMANAustralia

      I’m watching that video and I’m just not seeing the purported oratory skill.

      The comparison to Ron Paul only seems valid in terms of his tendency to take on a tone of “old fart rambling” at times, look more like a hobo clown than a president, and I can imagine him waving his hands in a ‘happening’ gif.

      Normally the shit he’s saying annoys me shitless, but this fucker is putting me to sleep. His “Global Warming is happening” crap is a good example. Could you state that position in a more generic boring way? It’s would be like Hitler saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, I do not like Jews, and I like Germany a lot. Thank you and goodnight.”

      The perfunctory response from the crowd sounds just as pathetic. They don’t sound like an audience ‘connecting’ with a speaker at all. They sound like they were literally paid and bused in. Just imagine Johnny Depp standing up there getting that response and you’ll see what I mean. No chicks are fainting in the aisles over anything this guy has to say, or the way he says it, (because they’ve heard it said before and better).

      • marlene

        Haha – I hear you. You’ve got the right reaction. His baited speeches do, in fact, catch more bottom feeding fish.

      • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

        Gotta agree with you IM. Spose you had to’ve been there. Also, Americans are way too prone to whooping.

        • IRONMANAustralia

          Someone needs to make an audio edit where they cut out the idiot screeching “Wooo!” after everything he says like he’s the Head House Nigger in Django, then you could hear the cursory golf clap you have left over.

          “Sure was Mr. Candie!”

      • You lost me at the anti-American bigotry and soldier bashing.

        You don’t have to support the war to support the warriors.

        I hate the Vietnam War but I treat a Vietnam Veteran with total respect and reverence, as he deserves. Same with the Iraq War.

    • Their “fair share”? How much should the Koch Brothers be stolen from in taxes to help blow up the Middle East? Why are we taxing anyone? Why not fund those services the same way we fund supermarkets or gas stations, ie. through voluntary exchanges?

      • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

        Point to one libertarian paradise that worked… Somalia?

        • Somalia was a failed socialist state that imploded in a civil war. What makes you think it has to do with libertarianism?

        • Point to typical socialist nations: North Korea. mainland China, the USSR. Many tens of millions killed.

          Somalia looks pretty good in comparison.

      • People always bash the Koch Brothers and are totally ignorant of George Soros.

      • And thanks, Grero, for your proper use of “theft” to refer to the tax money taken from the Koch Bros.

    • Marlene: Romney pays many millions in taxes each year. Enough to pay many cops, build schools, etc. He much more than pulls his weight in this nation. How can you imagine otherwise?

      Do you pay millions and millions in taxes as Romney does? If not, you are a hypocrite to whine that he isn’t paying enough.

      • marlene

        I already answered your rhetorical comment before you posted it – duh! He weighs more, he pays more. We pay 35% and he brags about paying only 13%. Paying his full share would not hurt his balance sheet. Paying 35% without loopholes impoverishes us. Your question is a segue-way to nowhere. Do the math and see yourself for the foolish hypocrite you really are. Don’t bother me again.

        • I’ve done the math. You have no leg to stand on. Good day .

  • Sam Cru

    He’s just another fall guy like Romney, Santorum, etc. in 2012. Rand Paul has already been selected by the elite and turned to the dark side. We will have killer drones with “Paul ’16” on the wings buzzing over American neighborhoods.

    • You’re retarded. You are absolutely retarded.

      Of all the people, of ALL the people to claim sold their soul to Big Government, you had to choose the one who forced Congress into a screeching halt to condemn violations of privacy and condemn drones?

      Why not say that about someone who wants to expand the powers of the surveillance state, like Chris Christie?

    • Nice theory, only there is no evidence of any of it.

  • Rawr

    This is a fantastic article, keep up your exceptional writing!

  • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

    It’d be interesting to see what sort of write up you get on Bloomberg, if any.

  • Don Duncan

    Denounce the ideas, not the purveyor. Ideas are not dangerous. They are sound or unsound. The unsound ones need to be sold by appeal to emotion or smuggled into the subconscious, getting past the conscious, critical faculty. For over a century the worst (irrational, anti-life) ideas have been taught in the public indoctrination centers filled with young minds who are easy prey. The majority already support the ideas that impoverish and enslave them. They don’t need to be sold. Bernie Sanders is preaching to the choir. Hitler preached to the choir. Stalin and Mao did also. The hidden assumption in their attempts to gain power is that the majority have the moral right to give some power over everyone, i.e., democracy is moral. That idea needs to be replaced with a respect for self rule, self governance, as partially expressed and implied by the Bill of Rights. The BoR is anti-rule, anti-government, because it attempts (but fails) to put a limit on govt. The only way to limit govt. is not to create it. Creating a social control system based on brute force instead of reason, and then expecting it to work, i.e., be reasonable, pro-life, is futile, contradictory. It’s only logical.
    There are numerous private social/economic systems that are less tyrannical, if flawed, but still superior. One can withdraw from any of these and not be killed or caged. Not so with govt.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      As millions of dead people can attest, the state is highly dangerous. The state owes its existence directly to certain pivotal fallacious ideas, e.g. that some men can have a right to rule other men. These false ideas are promoted by numerous purveyors aiming to legitimize their personal acts of aggression on others. Your claim that neither these idea nor these men are dangerous seems weak.

      • Don Duncan

        People who advocate and/or use initiation of force are dangerous. Where did I claim otherwise?
        The claim that an idea is dangerous is often used as an excuse to repress its expression by physically attacking its advocate. That is anti-intellectual, anti-reason, unless the advocate poses an immediate physical threat but not in response to an immediate threat, e.g., “Shut up right now or I’ll shut you up!” The immediate threat of initiation of force to stop expression of ideas, even onerous ones, is an immoral act because threats must be put in the same category as acts.
        Let us never forget that a police force would not exist without popular support. Focusing on the police or the govt. is to “strike at the leaves, not the root”. The root of the problem is the mass faith in institutionalized violence as superior to reason or voluntary social interaction.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          I agree with 90% of what you say, including the mechanics you outline. I’m simply disputing your claim that ideas cannot be considered dangerous and speakers of ideas cannot be considered dangerous for so speaking. I think your Objectivist-inspired, human-mind-centric posture doesn’t assess the matter on the sole basis that matters – aggression.

          First, let’s talk definition of “dangerous ideas,” as here we may have a simple semantic issue. Imagine a man conjures up a fallacious notion of “virtuous rape” and exhorts others to commit it. I agree with you, he is no aggressor if he never actually rapes anyone or takes any actions helping anyone rape anyone. So in this sense yes, an idea taken alone cannot be dangerous, only an action can be. However, that’s not what I mean when I label an idea dangerous. I mean dangerous in the sense that that idea would result in great unjust bodily harm if it were actually acted upon. Like “virtuous rape.”

          Moreover, that the act of advocating an idea in and of itself is innocent is no more immunizing to the speaker than any other innocent act would be if performed in order to supply material aid to an imminent or ongoing scheme of aggression.

          For example, imagine the same man above were hired by an organization, Rape, Inc. to visit target women in dark alleys immediately prior to Rape, Inc.’s actual rapist showing up on the scene to physically assault. The man’s charge – to deliver his “virtuous rape” sermon to a woman in order to befuddle her mind and raise her internal doubts so as to temper any potential resistance she might put up to the impending rape by the rapist. Or say the man merely performed soothing music to lull her into drowsiness. Or say the man merely engaged her in distracting conversation.

          Sermon delivery, music performance, and distracting conversation by themselves are not crimes. Yet any of these, to the extent they lend essential support, become criminal and dangerous when performed in conjunction with specific acts of aggression.

          • Don Duncan

            Ok, I agree with your final example. It uses context to evaluate our judgement as to “dangerous”. This use of context is really essential to definition. I was focused on a context where the term “dangerous idea” was used to initiate force without justification. But you give a context where normally benign actions become immoral, and therefore can be considered (in context) dangerous. Good.

            One of my favorite books, “The Most Dangerous Superstition” by Larken Rose justifies his label “dangerous” with 210 pages of argument. Now that is context!

            I am pro-order, anti-authority, anti-superstition. I have been since the age of 8. All my study and thought (philosophy major) plus my experience (age 72) have confirmed my confidence in reason as the only guide to knowledge. Since knowledge is a survival requirement, any beliefs held which contradict reason or reality are anti-life, irrational, impractical, and immoral. Superstitious beliefs fall into that category.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Amen, brother.

          • Tammy Hough

            Coralyn &Don…it was a pleasure to read such well thought out post!! Both of you have a great day!

          • henry

            pleasure too

    • Tammy Hough

      Don Duncan ..well said!!

    • Bob

      What’s your point? Bernie is preaching to the choir and is similar is character to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? The majority are American citizens that are aligning themselves with Sander, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? That is your “logical” extrapolation?
      The “social indoctrination machine” of the public school has an opt out. The real machine is the television. It forms your ideas of reality, family, style, and worship. Then, you get 500 channels from 6 media companies giving you the information that is deemed relevant to their purposes.
      I don’t know what you have stuffed into your head and believe, but it is plainly derived to have come from nihilist drivel.

      • Don Duncan

        Yes, yes, and yes.

        Public “school” has an opt out? It’s mandatory boobie, er, bob. But TV is a continuation of the politically correct “pledge allegiance” obey or else shit. Unlike most I survived because I overcame the brainwashing, i.e., I rejected most of the psychological manipulation.

        “…derived to have come from…? Try reading your comment before posting, it’s saves embarrassment.

        • Bob

          I’m not embarrassed about my post (just a small grammar error, the idea is still clear). I have gone to the lowest common denominator of debate… insults.
          You can opt out of public school by homeschooling or online schooling, Dookie Don.
          I’m sure there is a very dark story about your life somewhere in your judgmental life. But, I don’t want to hear about it. I congratulate you that you have found an internet home where people warmly receive your empty, paranoid, and self-important philosophy. It’s a very positive thing to have those that respect your opinion.

        • You can go to a private school or be homeschooled, so no, public school is NOT compulsary. You can choose to indoctrinate your own kids with your ideas or pay to go to a schoolhouse that indoctrinates beliefs you agree with. The government has tried to crush private schooling and homeschooling for decades exactly because it is a bulwark against state indoctrination.

          -and as for the Star Trek thing, that’s not a bad message, not at all. Sacrificing oneself to better others is a staple of humility and virtue.
          Take a look at organized religion and you’ll see the same thing in Christianity and Judaism both, as well as world religions like Buddhism.

          • Don Duncan

            I took a look a religions, specifically the moral code, and found sacrifice touted as a virtue. I did not buy it. However, it was not until I was 22 that I found a fully developed, sound argument for individualism (logical self interest). It was so moving a day that I still remember the circumstances and date: Jan. 1, 1966. I read Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”. My point is that I base by moral code on a reasoned argument, not authority, not custom, not superstition (religion).

            Most people cannot afford to pay for public services and private also. That’s why they use the public school. No schooling would be much better, but if they choose it, they go to jail, and lose their children. So telling me it’s not compulsory is like telling me car insurance is not compulsory because anyone is free to put up a $30K bond and be exempt.

  • David Nickles

    See ya’ in the bread line, comrades!

  • MrTonyD

    I think people are reacting to the fact that the Forbes 400 has 50% of the wealth in the US – and that any new wealth is going to those same people – even though they have so many billions and billions that they don’t do anything we would call work.

    And, on top of that, people have read about how the rich use offshore corporations to hide all the money they make – so they don’t pay any taxes after using the resources provided by our society – education, roads, military protection, hospitals, legal system, trade laws.

    So a lot of people feel very ripped-off by the rich. And rightly so.

    • Ken Flago

      It’s not the rich that are doing the ripping off. It’s the government that you support. Without it, none of this could happen.

      • MrTonyD

        Yeah, well research shows that the rich have bought our government, so we agree. I want to get our government back from the rich.

        • truth > spin

          If the rich bought the government, then the government was corrupt enough to be bought.

          Why would anyone want them empowered to sell us out yet further?

          • ResmuglicrookInvestigator

            Because the alternative is surrender. We have no other powers. They stole the governement and slowly outlawed labor collectivism, so now its down to the other half of the union slogan… Seperately we beg.

            Begging is not a position from which you can bargain for anything. I see the clever twists in this thread from the ‘true free marketers’ who think there will be no exploitation of labor and a big joyous open market where the oligopolies wont find ways to keep small upstarts from coming in.

            Yes, we agree that government capture is why the rich have distorted the markets using the state. Now, without presenting me some libertarian unicorn, how do we non-wealthy ever have any leverage to rise out of poverty if you take our last couple bargaining chips away and make us all individually fend for ourselves.

            This coming revolution could have been avoided, had the rich left well enough alone and not stolen what was left of our representative republic. FDR saved them from themselves once before(at the same time as your Adolph comparison), using much the same language as Sanders. Why if he sounds like FDR and not Adolph, do you assume he is the next Hitler(Godwin’s law says you lost).

          • FDR, while giving us a blessing of Social Security and a small number of good things, permanently cursed our country to the eternal flames of expanded government, curshing regulations, high taxes, and Lord knows what else.

            Worst of all, he damned our Constitution to Hell with his Warren Court appointees and their nasty rewriting of American law. To name just one example, look up the Wicker case.

          • Labor collectivism is strongly protected in the US.

            However, workers rights are being more and more defended: so workers can’t be forced into a collective that goes against their interests. That is how it should be: workers’ rights first.

        • Your fake “research” can’t show what is not true. The rich have not bought government. It makes for a nice sounding Stalinist conspiracy theory, but is simply untrue.

    • “And, on top of that, people have read about how the rich use offshore corporations to hide all the money they make”

      That’s good.; Tax rates are excessive here: I don’t blame the people one bit for legally trying to avoid their money being stolen.

      “so they don’t pay any taxes after using the resources provided by our
      society – education, roads, military protection, hospitals, legal
      system, trade laws.”

      Would if it were true: but the rich actually pay most of the taxes. The opposite of what you claim.

      • MrTonyD

        The rich pay zero taxes on the bulk of their money. In what fantasy world would a rich person choose to pay any low US tax rate instead of hiding their money offshore and paying zero?? They still have some business they haven’t or can’t move offshore, and they want to pay less taxes on that, so that is why you see them arguing for lower rates. It makes no sense for our society – we need to tax them on their incredible wealth.

        • Romney pays millions, each year. He is very rich. He is typical.

          • MrTonyD

            Romney keeps the bulk of his wealth offshore and away from taxes. He only pays taxes on a portion that is visible in the US. He has incredible wealth – and the fact that he pays millions on just a portion means that he is someone who is willing to have billions while others suffer.

            Romney’s use of offshores and destruction of US jobs is well documented (you have to stop reading just the mainstream media. They just tell the REI story over and over again.)

          • Romney pays millions each year. Can’t change that no matter how you try to deceive. But your “philosophy” of your own greed and jealousy and desire to spend others’ money drips like green ichor from your comments.

            Not a desire to do anything other than steal from your betters and cut them down to size.

            Come back when you pay as much money as Romney does….

          • Romney pays millions in taxes. Far more than you. Let’s see you pay as much as he does before you whine that the rulers don’t steal enough from him.

            Also, Romney’s investments were in companies like Staples that created jobs. Not destroyed them. If you want to look at jobs destroyed, look at the millions lost by Obama.

          • MrTonyD

            If you really cared you could find documentation on all the companies Romney has closed in the US so that he could take them offshore – where their income could be hidden. He paid no taxes on all that money. He destroyed far more jobs than he created (Staples is retail selling to the US market – he couldn’t offshore it like he did all the other companies.) You shouldn’t be surprised by this – all the rich guys move companies offshore to make more profit, destroy jobs, and avoid any taxes.

          • ” all the rich guys move companies offshore to make more profit, destroy jobs, and AVOID ANY TAXES”

            (I emphasized the last words). Yet, these “rich guys” far more in far many more “onshore” companies than anything offshore. create far more jobs than they destroy, and instead of avoiding taxes, they pay a record high amount of them: the lion’s share of tax revenue for the federal government.

            NBC reported last year that the top 1% pay 50% of all federal income taxes. So the reality is rather the opposite of “rich guys” avoiding all taxes.

          • MrTonyD

            The rich pay more taxes because they make all the money while most of the population just struggles to get by. So the fact that they have millions and millions while others struggle is just more proof of their immorality. So the fact they pay more taxes isn’t a good thing – it is a problem of the people who took all the money from our society.

          • “So the fact that they have millions and millions while others struggle is just more proof of their immorality.”:

            If you want to look at immorality, look instead at the government. They forcibly take money, ostensibly to help the poor, and enrich themselves and drop crumbs to the poor.

            The rich are giving a record amount of money to the government in taxes. Yet the government enriches and expands itself with the money: serving its own selfish needs.

            —————–

            “it is a problem of the people who took all the money from our society.”

            The rich give a massive amount, and take very little. But if your sentences refers to the government, it is pretty close to being spot-on.

            Anyway, about immorality. do you give as much to charities as the Koch Bros do? If not, who is the immoral one?

          • MrTonyD

            There is research showing that the rich have taken control of our government (a great study was from Princeton). So our government is broken as a side effect of the rich taking so much of our wealth. Look, the true role of the rich has been known since Biblical times – and when you look at the statistics and studies you can decide that you want to support them – but don’t expect intelligent people to agree with you.

          • You forget that the real problem is the rulers… the State. And not the ruled. And the rich, like everyone else, pay tribute to the rulers.

          • MrTonyD

            Studies show that in the US the State is controlled by the rich. And the rich also control our society in ways outside State – since they have power which is often unregulated by the State. Really, deregulation (which is less State influence) has given more power to the rich. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been studied extensively. The State gets its power from somewhere – and that is only rarely the people. There is a long history of the rich controlling Kings and States. It is worth studying actual history – rather than relying on people who have been persuaded by the propaganda of the rich.

          • Studies show that the State is controlled by those at the top in government. The rich pay massive tribute to them, not the other way around.

            It is worth studying actual history, not the faith-based Marxist version of it.

          • MrTonyD

            The rich “pay tribute” to the heads of State – yes. And as new heads of State run for office they are chosen and supported by the rich – with tribute again being paid. So, in effect, the rich control the government.

          • The heads of state are chosen by voters. Even the Koch Bros only have two votes between them, and no more. The situation of the rich choosing the rulers (heads of state) exists in your imagination and not reality.

          • MrTonyD

            Again, there are plenty of studies showing that marketing works. People are persuaded by what they read and what they see. So having the wealth to run ads and buy media spots has historically been the way to win elections. So having money buys you a lot of votes.

          • “So having money buys you a lot of votes.”

            Yet, what you describe has 0 cents going to anyone’s vote.

          • Yet you have not described a single penny being used to buy a single vote.

            What you have described is one of the rock-solid principles of the Law of the Land: the Constitution: the right of the people to criticize the rulers.

          • What you are steeped in is jealousy and hatred not of people who have done anything wrong, but of people who work harder than you, are more successful, and earn from it.

            Hatred by the lazy and greedy of “the rich” is the base of the worst mass murders of all time. Mao and Stalin used a version of your paranoid false claims to justify their atrocities. Hitler used a version of it too. This is all over the historic record.

            The rich kill and oppress a tiny fraction of those killed and oppressed by despots claiming to save us from “the rich”.

            You are going after the wrong people. Perhaps because you too are consumed with jealousy and greed. It’s quite immoral. Why not just focus on your own life rather than covet the property of those who work harder and succeed?

          • MrTonyD

            The rich have over 35% of the wealth (really, since they hide most of it offshore and away from accounting the real number is estimated to be over 50%). They control our government and political process to reduce our freedom and make themselves richer. These are facts – and worth understanding regardless of whether some people are jealous or envious or lazy or greedy. So it is worth trying to have the intellectual capacity to be able to disentangle two things being true at the same time – 1) The rich have taken control of our society and 2) some people will be jealous. Both problems can be addressed, but to be addressed they must first be understood. And confusing them all as “jealousy” is doing a disservice to our society.

          • This is wealth they created. It is no one else’s, and thus no one’s business.

            The idea that the rich control the government… other in that those in control are rich through such situations as excessive pay for Congress… is pure fiction.

            Those actually in power in government do work to reduce our freedoms. .. those of their subjects, rich and poor alike.

            Your (1) is an imaginary situation… and is entirely an artifact of (2).

          • MrTonyD

            Wealth is created in our society, and our society is created by laws – not by God. So our society can and should change the law which are being used by the rich to unfairly take money from our society. (outsourcing, offshoring, income hiding, tax avoidance,…) If a legitimate government decides that reducing some freedoms of the rich will increase the freedom of most others in our society, then that is a good thing to do.

          • “…the law which are being used by the rich to unfairly take money from our society”

            You have named nothing unfair at all. Just people using legal and ethical methods to protect their money from being stolen, when already so much is stolen in the first place.

            ” If a legitimate government decides that reducing some freedoms of the
            rich will increase the freedom of most others in our society”

            If only it were so simple. Instead, the “legitimate government” reduces freedoms and bloats itself on the stolen property. And no additional freedoms are given to others.

        • How greedy and envious you are:

          ” we need to tax them on their incredible wealth”

          You must be turning green.

          • MrTonyD

            When the rich have taken the wealth, destroyed jobs, and now cause suffering, what does it matter if someone is envious?

          • You are blaming the wrong people. It’s the government that is doing all of that instead.

          • MrTonyD

            Ah. So this is just a philosophy rather than anything based on actual facts. Sorry to waste my your time.

          • Yours is just a philosophy… one with very bad intent. And fact free. The last part of your message was messed up, didn’t show.

          • Example of government/the left destroying jobs: Bernie Sanders proposes banning companies from hiring those whose skills earn less than $15 an hour: sure to leave many low skill workers unemployed and destitute.

          • MrTonyD

            Wow. Do you ever read any serious analysis or do you just rely on biased media? Most economists in the world today (except those bought and paid for by special interests) agree that raising the minimum wage improves quality of life while causing almost no job loss. This has been proven in practice world-wide (but of course the rich get the press to report the opposite.) Why does it work this way? The primary theory is that because the rich 1% have 99% of all wealth, they are already paying as little as possible while getting huge profits. So raising the minimum wage just means that the rich make a small sliver less profit, but demand doesn’t change a lot. So while there is some job loss, it is compensated for by increased demand due to higher wages in the economy. This has been proven and re-proven in real economies for decades.

            I wish you would expand your reading into better sources. You waste everybody’s time when you just regurgitate the mantras of the rich.

          • Tell me, Tony… if you paid some kid down the road $4 to mow your lawn, and suddenly the government told you you had to pay the kid $9, what would you do?

            Keep hiring him to mow the lawn at $9 as before? Or just mow it yourself? Or keep paying the kid $9 an hour but let weeks go by between mowing? Be honest.

        • Thanks for the laugh. I used you as an example elsewhere of how the unqualified and uninformed bumble into conversations:

          “Thing about arguing with fellow conservatives like you is that you have a solid foundation in the fundamentals, and I learn things.

          Elsewhere I am arguing with a leftist who insists that the rich pay $0 in taxes. It’s like dealing with kindergartners…”

          • MrTonyD

            I’ve worked for three multi-billionaires – so I’ve seen how they completely avoid taxes first-hand. But rather than tell you my stories of how they hide the bulk of their wealth, why don’t you just look up the recent articles about WalMart?

            The Waltons gave themselves loans through offshore entities to run WalMart – that made their profits become loan expenses. Doing this got 85 billion offshore tax free. There are similar stories of Romney buying companies and moving them offshore where they profits disappeared. And there are serious studies estimating the total hidden wealth offshore in the double digit trillions. So if you are claiming that I’m uninformed you might want to try informing yourself.

  • GOD

    Wait a minute!… he even manages to charm a considerable number of libertarians? They must be those hipster-libertarians “who care” WAHH!
    fuck the poor, hungry, starving, the sandy hook kids, the holocaust victims, 9/11 victis, etc etc etc…FACT

    • He is completely anti-libertarian: the only rights he defends are of those in the tiny ruling elite.

  • Nathaniel Møøre

    If tax evaders went to jail more often, there would be nobody to run for president. Your whole “jail contradiction” doesnt work, when Bernie says there are too many people in jail for DRUGS and not enough for TAXES. This article is just another piece of gum under the table.

    • Then we can compromise: get the druggies out of jail. And significantly lower taxes to reduce tax criminals as well.

    • DerpDerpDerp

      You could just ban taxes. Theft is theft, even if you are stealing by threat to build the roads.

  • Al Bacon

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

    Keep up the fear mongering boys, its what you guys do best. Any press is good press as they say.

    • Davy Goossens

      for commies there should be no mercy.

    • I see you were unable to debate the article’s points.

    • No fear mongering at all. just laying out the truth about a man who has embraced socialism: the ideology of Pol Pot and Mao.

      He is very bad for working people: he wants to force them to pay campaign contributions under threat of being fired. He also wants to set minimum wage laws to force companies to fire anyone whose skills earn under $15 an hour. These are just a few of his very bad ideas.

      The first one alone might keep him out. Right to Work is favored by more than 60% of working people; Sanders wants to force workers into unions.

  • Lily Gonzalez

    Great article. It shook me to the core! Bernie might well be the next Adolf. Reminds me of what Stefan Molyneux preaches: when people are disgusted they can just as easily go commie as libertarian. It appears the masses might well take the commie route. This makes me all the more determined to get the hell out of this country! The empire is imploding.

    • Davy Goossens

      now you get a taste of what europe is like. and all western civ will end in plaasmoorden.

    • He won’t be the next Adolf. He won’t kill Jews. Ironically, the hard progressive base Bernie comes from really hates Jews, and wants to wipe out the Israelis for being Jewish. They have a big problem with Bernie Sanders.

      “It appears the masses might well take the commie route.”

      It appeals to the immoral, greedy, and lazy: communism/socialism promises that you won’t have to work for what you need. Just beg for it and the government will steal it for you from those who get off their butt and work.

  • dfasfgl

    I followed the Ralph Nader campaign in 2000 pretty closely. As bad as the two mainstream parties are, they just want to maintain the standard quo. That is preferable to this extremism. I’d love for a Ron Paul presidency. I’d be pleased with Rand Paul but I’ll take Hillary over this nut any day.

  • “That is quite concerning when you’re as prone to contradiction as a man like Bernie Sanders is. He complains simultaneously that the minimum wage is too low, and that unemployment is too high, as if there is no correlation between the two. He complains simultaneously about people being jailed for victimless crimes, and that taxes are too low, as if taxes were not collected by threat of incarceration. He says during one portion of his address, that even if we disagree we should be open to discussion, then in another, that people should not negotiate with anyone who wants to cut any government program ever.”

    Hahaha you’re so silly. There’s a contradiction between raising taxes and imprisoning fewer people? Really?

    • If you raise taxes, more people are going to evade them, raising the prison counts.

      • Now THERE’s an original economic argument. Perhaps not a well thought out one, but original nonetheless.

        • It’s rather well thought out, what Turtle said. Taxes are a disincentive to engage in the activity that is being taxed.

          • Huh? TurtleShroom didn’t even mention the activities being taxed, just said that raising taxes would send more people to jail for tax evasion. The poorly thought out aspect is that a) tax evaders account for an incredibly tiny proportion of the prison population, and b) there’s no evidence that raising taxes increases the level of tax evasion. So raising taxes likely won’t increase the number of tax evaders (and particularly not the number that get caught, which is more based on IRS resources rather than crime rates), and even if it does, it will amount to an infinitesimal increase in the larger prison population.

  • glendale1

    What a bunch of nonsense. Bernie Sanders is the one person who has told the truth, stood by the truth and is not bought and paid for by corporations. He is totally transparent, a rarity in government. garbage articles like this belong in a trash magazine.

    • Donald Trump speaks truth and is bought and paid for by no one but himself. His truth sounds radical when dishonesty was the norm.

      Your point?

    • He speaks his convictions, but so much of what he says isn’t true at all. And whar you confusedly call “being bought and paid for by corporations” usually means nothing more than candidates keeping the interest of the people (the private sector) in mind, instead of only thinking about the good of the rulers (the State).

      “I believe Americans are fed up with our government being bought and controlled by the ones with the biggest pockets”

      But as many Americans are fed up with the government being the one with the biggest pockets. Bernie is for the tiny number of people in power, and those who rule are his “people”.

      “Its refreshing to hear a candidate tell the truth. And yes the truth is radical especially when dishonesty is the norm.”

      He’s just an extremist liar who thinks that left-wing fascism (i.e. socialism)… the ideology of Pol Pot and Assad in Syria, is a good idea.

      Thankfully, he won’t get more than 20% ,and the only damage he will do is to the Democratic Party.

  • Lolbertarian

    Vote Bernie Sanders 2016! You too can experience Venezuelan style toilet paper shortchanges. Because remember we are only 5 new laws away from utopia

    • The new Dem party symbol could then be an empty toilet paper roll.

      Or Hugo Chavez’ face, red from a 5-meal a day beefsteak diet as his people went hungry.

  • HEILHlTLER

    sanders is also JEWISH, remember what happened when RUSSIA succumbed to Jewish Communism? FACT most of the RULING ELITES OF STALIN’s CABINET WAS JEWISH,

    • Aww shut up and go join a Neo-Nazi party, you twit.

      • HEILHlTLER

        LETS DISCUSS THE ISSUES, THEY WERE JEWISH COMMUNISTS, SANDERS IS AN JEWISH COMMUNIST, THEY WILL DESTROY USA LIKE THEY DESTROYED RUSSIA

    • The only relevancy of Sanders being “JEWISH” is that there is a large nasty antisemitic streak in the progressive movement.

      They dislike Jews, and believe that the Israelis have no right to live, and should be murdered and/or expelled. Sanders opposes this sort of genocide.

      This will soften his support on hard Left.

  • Paul

    Bernie Sanders’ sole purpose is thus: to give the left’s voting sheeple *just enough* hope that they don’t walk away from the system completely. Make no mistake about it, Bernie will be allowed to continue this function, and then, just at the right time, will be promptly “Howard Dean screamed” into oblivion by the state-corporate media. The hapless voters will thus be delivered into the lap of Corporatist Hillary just as she goes head-to-head with Jeb Bush. Just watch. This is ALWAYS how it plays out. Voting is a racket.

    • Jebediah Bush will NOT capture the GOP Primary.

  • NewHampshire

    Bolshevism — it’s here! As witnessed by the removal of our symbols and statues and the erasure of our history.

  • NewHampshire

    We should all support Bernie in the primary because he would never win a general…. hahaha.

  • Martin Van Nostran

    Look into Bernie’s past. He is and was an angry Leftist who’s never held a steady job. His only occupation has been in government taking other people’s money from one group and re-distributing it to another larger group that votes for him. Think Greece. Or Venezuela where government gives and “someone else” pays the bills. Until they don’t. Then the riots start. But when that happens Bernie (and Obama, Krugman and his pals ) will be safely guarded in their compounds far from the chaos they created. That’s always the way it is with Leftists. And the “useful idiots” who were cheering the loudest will be the most surprised when it happens- again….and casting about for new villains to blame for their failed ideas-again.

  • Mark Baland

    Subsidizing poverty is the current capitalist system we have, where the middle class subsidizes cheap labor with taxes for public assistance so the rich can pay starvation wages.

    Subsidizing poverty is what the conservatives want. It is Republicans who run a plantation and keep people, especially minorities, poor.

    Democratic Socialism, like Bernie Sanders promotes, does not subsidize poverty; It gives workers a more equitable share of the fruits of their labor and gains in their productivity so the middle class doesn’t need to spend so much to subsidize the cheap labor of the working poor to make the rich richer.

    • GOOD GOSH MAN.

      The Democrats are the ones enslaving the minorities and running a plantation! They’re the ones keeping people dependant on government, they’re the ones destroying black families, and theyr’e the ones that promise free stuff if you keep voting on them! They condemn work ethic and keep minorities from wanting anything except handouts. You have it absolutely backwards.

      Also, you don’t deserve an “equitable share” of the fruits of SOMEONE ELSE’S labor. You don’t “deserve” anything you don’t earn. PERIOD.

      Out of the goodness of the heart, people can (AND SHOULD) donate THEIR money to help the poor, but the state has no business STEALING their money to BUY THE VOTES of the poor.

    • None of that is true, really. No one pays “Starvation Labor” for example.

      No conservative wants to subsidized poverty, so that never happens.

      ” It is Republicans who run a plantation and keep people, especially minorities, poor.”

      No evidence of that. In fact, the opposite is true. Under Ronald Reagan, the black middle class grew. Under Obama, black poverty grew.

      “Democratic Socialism, like Bernie Sanders promotes, does not subsidize poverty;”

      Socialism is nothing more than economic fascism. It is the ideology of Hitler and Stalin. It steals from both the rich and poor to subsidize government.

      ” It gives workers a more equitable share of the fruits of their labor”

      Not at all. Under socialism, the reward is divorced from the value of work.

      “the middle class doesn’t need to spend so much to subsidize the cheap labor of the working poor to make the rich richer.”

      That doesn’t happen at all now.

  • Philip Camblin

    Written by the sheriff on Nottingham I assume… Of course, you speak of ROBIN of LOXLEY in an Ill favor…he only wishes to re-distribute YOUR selfishly gained-tarriffs …earned by the peasents, and given to YOU, the papal lords of industry…WRITING THIS BULLSH*T, is your constitutional right, but putting online for people to actually read, is disheartening. Take a long walk, off a short cliff…
    Sincerely, AMERICA

  • Steven

    I work, I don’t get paid enough. If he helps me negotiate for better pay, I am all for it!

    • You sound greedy. You want extra money handed to you. Why not just earn it?

      • Steven

        I do earn it. I need to negotiate better.

  • Zack Taylor

    Christopher,

    You are a delusional, paranoid, ignorant douche.

  • jack

    Bernie Sanders’ ideas are sickening. Down with Socialism in America.

    #StandwithRand in 2016

    • Look at what Sander’s ideas did in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and in Mao’s China. It’s all the same ideology.

  • If he were in power, he’d be dangerous in most ways: to any working person, to any business person, to anyone who values the Bill of Rights.

  • He’s the most dangerous to the Dems and no one else. His extreme views appeal to the lazy slobs in the Occupy movement. That’s about 20% of the people.

    If he manages to secure the Dem nomination, he’d ensure that anyone on the Republican slate right now would win in a landslide, setting the cause of the Dems and the Left back a decade or more.

  • privatechaos

    I suppose you count yourself among the “THEM” : Is it that “THEY” are wonderful because they already re-distributed the wealth upwards and you just failed to notice? Oh, wait.

  • dennis richardson

    What America needs is beyond what Sanders is capable of understanding. Criminal banker gangsters are responsible for causing poverty in America NOT the well to do middle class. Sanders in the end is a useful puppet of London and New York City banker gangster Oligarchs trying to enslave America and the world to a debt based currency. Trump may not be the man to stop these gangsters, Sanders is certainly not the man. JUBILEE

  • Marco Savo

    Is this article a critic to Bernie Sanders, or is a praise? is this ironic? I can’t see a single fault in what Bernie supposedly said. I am an anarchist, and I am European, and I can say only, eat the rich! the most unequal country in the world, need Bernie! The United Snakes of Corporations are going to look as an equal (as income per capita) European counterpart would look like, Switzerland or Norway! and maybe even starve the biggest terrorist organization of the World (the US Army and the Israel IDF)! oh and you are anarchists? you’re a bunch of fascists!

  • Mr. Michael

    Bernie wants to limit my choice of deodorant and I want to limit his choice of medicine. That hyperthyroidism medicine he needs wasn’t developed by some Birkenstock wearing, unshaved pit hair, pink haired feminist. It was created by capitalism.
    Sanders for a 5150.

  • David

    Hahahaha … too funny. using a fictional character from a poorly written fictional book by an atheist named Ayn Rand to try and smear Bernie Sanders. That’s so embarrassing to have even been attempted, Ill just be embarrassed for you and call it a day.

  • Jordan Austin Keller

    These cold war kids have had socialism seared into their mind as inherently evil and destructive by the fear mongering of their youth era. I am about principles over politicians and I’m loyal to facts not ideologies.

    Socialism when appropriately applied should be about a fair economy. Cold war kids and neo-conservatives peddle that socialism means everyone from the CEO to the janitor gets paid the same wage, thereby there’s no competition of motivation. Socialism instead prevents atrocities like the fact that 32 people in this world have as much money as the bottom 3.8 billion combined. Now of course people can be distinguished and deserve vastly more than someone else. However, no human being is so distinguished that they’re worth 118 million people.

    Look at the socialist Finland:

    Finland:

    Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is
    100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society.

  • bart007

    He has sucked so many young people in, it reminds me of my history classes of the Russian Revolution and the belief that the wealthy and current politicians are to blame for all “our problems” so let’s get rid of them.

  • Giantsfan

    You’re an idiot. You should have been named Christopher Rantwell.

  • Lynn Lawson

    now you should be even more scared. I am so tired of hearing about the 1% and the evils of Wall Street. Do his supporters not understand that ordinary Americans have their retirement funds invested in what he summarily refers to as “Wall Street”? The fringe element of his supporters do not support the issues. They simply want to overthrow the government, perhaps burn the capitol building. There is no patriotism here. These people just want to disrupt and blow things up. Be very afraid.

  • WeeFree

    Well written. Do you think the rioters post Trump election are probably Bernie’s supporters, as prophetically described in said article?