Feeling the Bern?

[Anathema]

Whatever true Conservatism or true Progressivism may be, neither side owns a monopoly on nationalism, traditionalism, morality, etc., however those terms may be defined. Take morality, for example. Perhaps Citizen A's sense of morality is different than Citizen B's sense of morality. Each citizen in this country is free to apply his own moral standards to his own life, but he does not have the right to impose his morals on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. So long as a citizen's neighbor isn't causing him harm, the citizen should mind his own business. That's called freedom, i.e., LIBERTY & JUSTICE for ALL.

Realize that I am not a believer in Freedom or Liberty. Only Justice, of your stated concepts, carries weight with me. I don't believe that the vast majority of human beings, never mind Americans are truly capable of understanding what Justice and Morality really are. They most certainly have NOTHING to do with Freedom or Liberty. They have EVERYTING to do with Right and Wrong.

Nationalism? I believe all those who identify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" have most of the same reasons to be proud of country, our accomplishments throughout our history, and our melting pot of citizens. In this country, we're not required to take an oath of loyalty to any Fuhrer, so to speak, out of fear of being whisked away to a death camp.

Nationalism isn't about being Proud of your country, it's about being LOYAL to your country, above all others, under all circumstances. Note that I didn't say loyal to the Government, but to the Nation.

Isolationism? I don't know how you define "isolationism". All persons of every ilk know we can't be the policeman of every country in the world. We don't have the resources to combat social injustice wherever it may exist beyond our borders. Wars of choice, rather than wars of necessity, must be avoided because they will destroy us. We need to address social injustice within the borders of our own country and lead by example.

I define it as.... The world drops off sharply at the border. No people, communications, etc.... into the country. You can leave any time you want, just don't expect to be able to come back.

Socialism? We're not a purely socialist country nor are we a purely capitalist country. We are a nation of laws, not of men. That means government regulation exists for the common good. Throwing out the word "socialism" as some sort of dirty word simply ignores the constitutional structure of our country.

We aren't a nation of laws and haven't been since Abraham Lincoln used the US Constitution as toilet paper in the White House's outhouse in 1861.

 

[PredFan]

I believe that Bernie tells what he believes is the truth. I do not think that he lies. The problem is that he is truely bat shit crazy. He actually believes the crazy shit he says.

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

 

[Debra K]

Whatever true Conservatism or true Progressivism may be, neither side owns a monopoly on nationalism, traditionalism, morality, etc., however those terms may be defined. Take morality, for example. Perhaps Citizen A's sense of morality is different than Citizen B's sense of morality. Each citizen in this country is free to apply his own moral standards to his own life, but he does not have the right to impose his morals on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. So long as a citizen's neighbor isn't causing him harm, the citizen should mind his own business. That's called freedom, i.e., LIBERTY & JUSTICE for ALL.

Realize that I am not a believer in Freedom or Liberty. Only Justice, of your stated concepts, carries weight with me. I don't believe that the vast majority of human beings, never mind Americans are truly capable of understanding what Justice and Morality really are. They most certainly have NOTHING to do with Freedom or Liberty. They have EVERYTING to do with Right and Wrong.

Your stated belief is an oxymoron. Justice means fairness. The concepts of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law", which are embodied in our Constitution, have fairness (justice) as their foundation. Applying your sense of morality to your own life, you might consider something to be "wrong".

For instance, Citizen A might think that sexual relations in any position other than the missionary position is immoral and thus wrong. Citizen B disagrees. Why would it be fair for Citizen A to use the power of the government to impose his sense of morality on Citizen B? In your vision of a more perfect nation, one that disbelieves in individual liberty, who is in charge of the morality police? Who gets to be the dictator? who gets to be the oppressor of freedom? how can oppression possibly be equal to justice?

Nationalism? I believe all those who identify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" have most of the same reasons to be proud of country, our accomplishments throughout our history, and our melting pot of citizens. In this country, we're not required to take an oath of loyalty to any Fuhrer, so to speak, out of fear of being whisked away to a death camp.

Nationalism isn't about being Proud of your country, it's about being LOYAL to your country, above all others, under all circumstances. Note that I didn't say loyal to the Government, but to the Nation.

That's where your definition of "nationalism" differs from mine. Loyalty "under all circumstances" isn't a feasible goal because people are not single-minded robots ... they are individuals with minds of their own and sometimes they sharply disagree. What you are describing is citizenship in a country where dissenters are exterminated. Fear of extermination is not equal to loyalty to country. I love my country and I'm proud of my country in large part because I have the freedom to dissent against national policies that are oppressive.

If you're talking about treason, then yes ... treason is a crime. Conservatives and progressives agree that treason, as defined by law, is wrong because it causes grave harm to our national interests. Again, your thesis that true conservatism embodies nationalism doesn't hold water. Conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on nationalism. For instance, no one is going to buy the concept that only someone like a Nazi (who remains loyal to Germany even though it's marching the alleged undesireables to death camps) is a true conservative. You appear to be talking in circles and I don't think you've truly thought through your concept of true conservatism.

[

Isolationism? I don't know how you define "isolationism". All persons of every ilk know we can't be the policeman of every country in the world. We don't have the resources to combat social injustice wherever it may exist beyond our borders. Wars of choice, rather than wars of necessity, must be avoided because they will destroy us. We need to address social injustice within the borders of our own country and lead by example.

I define it as.... The world drops off sharply at the border. No people, communications, etc.... into the country. You can leave any time you want, just don't expect to be able to come back.

No rational person is going to agree that true conservatism embodies isolationism as you describe it. The fact that you would allow people to escape the ideal nation you describe (where loyalty must exist under ALL circumstances) and thus communicate with the outside world means that the world does not drop off sharply at the border.

[

Socialism? We're not a purely socialist country nor are we a purely capitalist country. We are a nation of laws, not of men. That means government regulation exists for the common good. Throwing out the word "socialism" as some sort of dirty word simply ignores the constitutional structure of our country.

We aren't a nation of laws and haven't been since Abraham Lincoln used the US Constitution as toilet paper in the White House's outhouse in 1861.

Seceding from the Union, under your definition of nationalism was a disloyal thing to do. The civil war gave rise to the post-civil war amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution), which secure FREEDOM for all persons within our borders. And again, freedom means liberty and justice for all (you can't have liberty without justice, and you can't have justice without liberty). Like what happens when traveling all other circles, we are now back where we started. True conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the basic concepts that you appear to cherish.

 

[Debra K]

"Ugh. If Hillary is the candidate, I won't vote.

I don't want any of those crazy Republican candidates anywhere near the White House (and all of them are many times worse than G.W. Bush)."

Agreed.

In which case you'll need to vote.

A significant number of us have never voted 'for' anyone, only against.

A significant number of us are pragmatists who long ago accepted a fundamental fact of American politics: voting for the lesser of two evils.

It's understood that there are those who wish to feel excited about those whom they vote for, that their vote will make a difference, and will go to support a candidate who will accomplish what the voter would like to see accomplished.

But that's often not how it works.

The problem isn't a lack of 'good' candidates, or that 'poor' candidates alone seek public office.

The problem is the hyper-partisan nature of American politics, where not only elected office and its privileges are at stake, but where our fundamental rights are in jeopardy, part of the spoils of political war, the consequence of those crazy Republicans, rightwing extremists, and social conservatives.

The Framers created a Constitutional Republic to safeguard our rights and liberties, to shield them from the intrigues and acrimony of partisan conflict, from those who would seek to attack the protected liberties of their political enemies, as most on the right seek to do today.

It would be nice to participate in the political process, to support the candidate who best represents one's views and beliefs, comforted by the fact that whomever might become president, one's rights and liberties would indeed be beyond the reach of that partisan conflict.

Sadly, that's not the case.

With each of the republican candidates for president hostile to the privacy rights of women and the equal protection rights of gay Americans, who as president would appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the Supreme Court with the intent of undermining settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence and our protected liberties, in addition to republicans' wrongheaded fiscal policy, foreign policy, and propensity for war, we are compelled to vote this November, to vote against the republican nominee, not 'for' someone we don't like.

We elect our leaders not to steadfastly hang on to political ideology but to actually solve real world problems. That means choosing battles that can be won, not just putting up the good fight to insure re-election.

To me there are several candidates that would be a disaster. Trump is just plain unfit for office. Ted Cruz's dogmatic approach to government and focus on unachievable objectives will mean 4 years of infighting within his own party. On the democrat side, I think Sanders proposals would meet strong resistance in a democrat controlled congress and would not even get out of committee in a republican congress. A vote for any of these candidates would amount to a protest vote.

In my opinion, neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the republican candidates have the ability or inclination to "solve real world problems". They may pay lip service to our problems and perhaps find some ineffective and temporary Band-aides to cover up festering wounds, but festering wounds will still be there.

We need to cure the cancer that afflicts our political establishment. It might be resistant to "the cure", but we have no choice. We must treat the disease or die. The "pragmatists" say that trying to cure the disease is an exercise in futility, so we have to settle for the ineffective bandages. I'm not settling.

Edited to add: I had hope for Obama, but was deeply disappointed. Obamacare, i.e., The AFFORDABLE Healthcare Act (Aha!) is not affordable. It is a Band-aide for the poor, a Burden for the middle class, and a Boon for insurance corporations. The corporations hiked up the insurance premiums, are experiencing record profits, and are using billions of dollars of those profits to buy up the smaller companies in order to get their forced customers. (Obama also failed to deliver on any of his other campaign "promises".) So, when Obama ran for re-election in 2012, I did not vote for him. I stayed home. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll stay home again. I won't help my fellow citizens put an ineffective bandage on our serious national problems.

 

[Anathema]

Your stated belief is an oxymoron. Justice means fairness. The concepts of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law", which are embodied in our Constitution, have fairness (justice) as their foundation.

Wrong!! Justice is about every single individual being pubished every single time they beeak the law, and that punishment being as unpleasant as the harm caused by the crime. It's also about ebsuribg the law protects the VICTIMS, never the criminals. THAT is Justice.

In your vision of a more perfect nation, one that disbelieves in individual liberty, who is in charge of the morality police? Who gets to be the dictator? who gets to be the oppressor of freedom? how can oppression possibly be equal to justice?

Nobidy is in charge of determining Morality. That is written into the Founding Documents, which are not able to be ammended or changed. The Government is tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those Foundational Documents, not debating their merits. Rwalize thst I do not belueve in a Right to act in an Improper or Immiral manner.

That's where your definition of "nationalism" differs from mine. Loyalty "under all circumstances" isn't a feasible goal because people are not single-minded robots ... they are individuals with minds of their own and sometimes they sharply disagree. What you are describing is citizenship in a country where dissenters are exterminated. Fear of extermination is not equal to loyalty to country. I love my country and I'm proud of my country in large part because I have the freedom to dissent against national policies that are oppressive.

If you dissent, then leave. If you choose not to, then your dissent us tantamount to Treason abd should be treated az such.

If you're talking about treason, then yes ... treason is a crime. Conservatives and progressives agree that treason, as defined by law, is wrong because it causes grave harm to our national interests. Again, your thesis that true conservatism embodies nationalism doesn't hold water. Conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on nationalism. For instance, no one is going to buy the concept that only someone like a Nazi (who remains loyal to Germany even though it's marching the alleged undesireables to death camps) is a true conservative. You appear to be talking in circles and I don't think you've truly thought through your concept of true conservatism.

Nazis weren't true Conservatives because they chose murder, expansionism and conquest over Isolationism. Outside of that they were pretty close.

No rational person is going to agree that true conservatism embodies isolationism as you describe it. The fact that you would allow people to escape the ideal nation you describe (where loyalty must exist under ALL circumstances) and thus communicate with the outside world means that the world does not drop off sharply at the border.

I think you're missing something. There would be no communication in or out. Those who are caught trying are executed for treason. Now, you may choose to take a boat and attemp to make some sort of trip out. When the Navy stops you at the edge of International waters, you would be boarded to ensure you have no extra property, have all citizenshop papers revoked and be reminded that any attemp to turn back will be met with lethal force. With no incoming or outgoing air travel, that means of escape would be out and leaving by foot would require a process slightly more intrusive than getting through the Berlin Wall.

Seceding from the Union, under your definition of nationalism was a disloyal thing to do. The civil war gave rise to the post-civil war amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution), which secure FREEDOM for all persons within our borders. And again, freedom means liberty and justice for all (you can't have liberty without justice, and you can't have justice without liberty). Like what happens when traveling all other circles, we are now back where we started. True conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the basic concepts that you appear to cherish.

Wrong. Voting for Lincoln was the Treasonous Act. The Confederacy held the true beluefs of America, not the Union.

 

[Debra K]

Feeling the Bern? I am. I even contributed money to his campaign. I've never done that before. Not even for Obama even though I truly hoped he would be the harbinger of change. I'm disappointed.

Here's a good reason why I support Bernie Sanders for President of the United States:

Source: If Hillary Clinton Isn't Influenced by Wall Street Cash, Then Why Overturn Citizens United?

I'm not going to settle for Hillary.

Source: Hillary Clinton Says "No We Can't"

Ugh. If Hillary is the candidate, I won't vote.

I don't want any of those crazy Republican candidates anywhere near the White House (and all of them are many times worse than G.W. Bush).

Are you tired of candidates saying what you want to hear to get your vote, and then forgetting about you until the next time they want your vote? I am. We're heading toward another major collapse and the billionaires will have enough money to buy up everything the rest of us lose. We have a corporate congress ... and other corporate cronies running our country for the benefit of the top one percent. Outrageous.

Do you feel the Bern? why or why not?

if hillary's the candidate you won't vote.

and if bernie is the candidate we can't win.

so there ya go. but feel free to stay home.

I don't agree that Bernie can't win the election.

If he's not the presidential candidate, I will stay home. I won't vote for "evil" even if some people believe Hillary is the lesser evil.

I never thought Trump would make it this far but he has.

Hillary is by far the most experience and capable candidate but her age is catching up with her. Sanders does't have a chance getting anything he has proposed through congress. Rubio lacks experience and credibility. Cruz's own party can't stand him and his political philosophy is so ridge he will never be able to work with congress. Trump is just plain crazy.

Why does Sanders have to carry all the water for us? Voting him into office is just the first step. The next step is to hold each member of an obstructionist Congress accountable. If we're unwilling to take the first step because the next step requires further effort on our part, then we're lazy and deserve what we get. We need to clean house from top to bottom.

This is just not realistic now or in the foreseeable future – particularly where the GOP has dug into gerrymandered red states; consequently, republicans will likely control the House for the next 20 years.

And even with it likely democrats will regain control of the Senate next year, it could be lost again in 2018 – this political inconsistency and instability is the product of our hyper-partisan age, where Americans will need to continue to fight for their rights and liberties in court against conservative efforts to deny them those rights; a fight Americans can't win with the courts populated by judges and justices who are conservative ideologues hostile to the rights of Americans.

Thank you again, but I don't agree that we can't alter the course of our nation. The path we are on leads only to destruction, and I don't want to continue on that path. Gerrymandering is a problem, so let's get rid of gerrymandering, etc... In other words, we should care enough to make it happen. I'm getting old and I would really like to see "change I can believe in" within my lifetime. So, I'm throwing my hat in with the overwhelming numbers of young people who don't want to be saddled with the problems, and the debt, and the wars, and the broken country that us older folks are leaving for them. Those young people are flocking to support Bernie and I applaud them for waking up and paying attention.

 

[jillian]

if hillary's the candidate you won't vote.

and if bernie is the candidate we can't win.

so there ya go. but feel free to stay home.

I don't agree that Bernie can't win the election.

If he's not the presidential candidate, I will stay home. I won't vote for "evil" even if some people believe Hillary is the lesser evil.

I never thought Trump would make it this far but he has.

Hillary is by far the most experience and capable candidate but her age is catching up with her. Sanders does't have a chance getting anything he has proposed through congress. Rubio lacks experience and credibility. Cruz's own party can't stand him and his political philosophy is so ridge he will never be able to work with congress. Trump is just plain crazy.

Why does Sanders have to carry all the water for us? Voting him into office is just the first step. The next step is to hold each member of an obstructionist Congress accountable. If we're unwilling to take the first step because the next step requires further effort on our part, then we're lazy and deserve what we get. We need to clean house from top to bottom.

This is just not realistic now or in the foreseeable future – particularly where the GOP has dug into gerrymandered red states; consequently, republicans will likely control the House for the next 20 years.

And even with it likely democrats will regain control of the Senate next year, it could be lost again in 2018 – this political inconsistency and instability is the product of our hyper-partisan age, where Americans will need to continue to fight for their rights and liberties in court against conservative efforts to deny them those rights; a fight Americans can't win with the courts populated by judges and justices who are conservative ideologues hostile to the rights of Americans.

Thank you again, but I don't agree that we can't alter the course of our nation. The path we are on leads only to destruction, and I don't want to continue on that path. Gerrymandering is a problem, so let's get rid of gerrymandering, etc... In other words, we should care enough to make it happen. I'm getting old and I would really like to see "change I can believe in" within my lifetime. So, I'm throwing my hat in with the overwhelming numbers of young people who don't want to be saddled with the problems, and the debt, and the wars, and the broken country that us older folks are leaving for them. Those young people are flocking to support Bernie and I applaud them for waking up and paying attention.

there is a gerrymandering case before the supreme court right now, iirc. until they rule, gerrymandering is protected.

they are "waking up and paying attention". that's good. being silly and voting for someone who a) has no interest in foreign policy and no knowledge of foreign policy; and b) can't win... is silly and handing the reins to the same idiots who broke everything in the first place.

 

[Debra K]

Feeling the Bern? I am. I even contributed money to his campaign. I've never done that before. Not even for Obama even though I truly hoped he would be the harbinger of change. I'm disappointed.

Here's a good reason why I support Bernie Sanders for President of the United States:

Source: If Hillary Clinton Isn't Influenced by Wall Street Cash, Then Why Overturn Citizens United?

I'm not going to settle for Hillary.

Source: Hillary Clinton Says "No We Can't"

Ugh. If Hillary is the candidate, I won't vote.

I don't want any of those crazy Republican candidates anywhere near the White House (and all of them are many times worse than G.W. Bush).

Are you tired of candidates saying what you want to hear to get your vote, and then forgetting about you until the next time they want your vote? I am. We're heading toward another major collapse and the billionaires will have enough money to buy up everything the rest of us lose. We have a corporate congress ... and other corporate cronies running our country for the benefit of the top one percent. Outrageous.

Do you feel the Bern? why or why not?

if hillary's the candidate you won't vote.

and if bernie is the candidate we can't win.

so there ya go. but feel free to stay home.

I don't agree that Bernie can't win the election.

If he's not the presidential candidate, I will stay home. I won't vote for "evil" even if some people believe Hillary is the lesser evil.

I never thought Trump would make it this far but he has.

Hillary is by far the most experience and capable candidate but her age is catching up with her. Sanders does't have a chance getting anything he has proposed through congress. Rubio lacks experience and credibility. Cruz's own party can't stand him and his political philosophy is so ridge he will never be able to work with congress. Trump is just plain crazy.

Why does Sanders have to carry all the water for us? Voting him into office is just the first step. The next step is to hold each member of an obstructionist Congress accountable. If we're unwilling to take the first step because the next step requires further effort on our part, then we're lazy and deserve what we get. We need to clean house from top to bottom.

because 70% of the people in this country have said they will NEVER vote for a socialist.

i understand that idealistic college kids love bernie. i love bernie and would be happy to hang out with him.

but a socialist .... particularly a socialist jew.... is not going to be president.

go look up mcgovern. then get back to us.

I understand from the foregoing that you won't vote for a "socialist jew" and you already know that I won't vote for Hillary.

This isn't 1972 and Sanders won't be running against an incumbent president . . . and on and on and on. I'm calling this logical fallacy: False Analogy.

 

[Debra K]

I don't agree that Bernie can't win the election.

If he's not the presidential candidate, I will stay home. I won't vote for "evil" even if some people believe Hillary is the lesser evil.

I never thought Trump would make it this far but he has.

Hillary is by far the most experience and capable candidate but her age is catching up with her. Sanders does't have a chance getting anything he has proposed through congress. Rubio lacks experience and credibility. Cruz's own party can't stand him and his political philosophy is so ridge he will never be able to work with congress. Trump is just plain crazy.

Why does Sanders have to carry all the water for us? Voting him into office is just the first step. The next step is to hold each member of an obstructionist Congress accountable. If we're unwilling to take the first step because the next step requires further effort on our part, then we're lazy and deserve what we get. We need to clean house from top to bottom.

This is just not realistic now or in the foreseeable future – particularly where the GOP has dug into gerrymandered red states; consequently, republicans will likely control the House for the next 20 years.

And even with it likely democrats will regain control of the Senate next year, it could be lost again in 2018 – this political inconsistency and instability is the product of our hyper-partisan age, where Americans will need to continue to fight for their rights and liberties in court against conservative efforts to deny them those rights; a fight Americans can't win with the courts populated by judges and justices who are conservative ideologues hostile to the rights of Americans.

Thank you again, but I don't agree that we can't alter the course of our nation. The path we are on leads only to destruction, and I don't want to continue on that path. Gerrymandering is a problem, so let's get rid of gerrymandering, etc... In other words, we should care enough to make it happen. I'm getting old and I would really like to see "change I can believe in" within my lifetime. So, I'm throwing my hat in with the overwhelming numbers of young people who don't want to be saddled with the problems, and the debt, and the wars, and the broken country that us older folks are leaving for them. Those young people are flocking to support Bernie and I applaud them for waking up and paying attention.

there is a gerrymandering case before the supreme court right now, iirc. until they rule, gerrymandering is protected.

they are "waking up and paying attention". that's good. being silly and voting for someone who a) has no interest in foreign policy and no knowledge of foreign policy; and b) can't win... is silly and handing the reins to the same idiots who broke everything in the first place.

You haven't convinced me. I guess the silly young people will have to sit home and rest up for a few years. They're going to have a lot of work to do after the wise old people finally hand the reins over to them.

 

[Kondor3]

...The ... good part is discovering how many message board denizens are scared of a word they don't understand and don't want to understand.

Oh, they understand it, alright... they just don't want what Uncle Bernie is sellin'...

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

Speaking of geriatrics, old Bernie will be 75 years old, if he lives long enough until election day. An old socialist like that, who never accomplished jack-shit or had a single bill that he introduced PASS in 26 years in office, his health is surely in decline if he's been relying on commie socialist "govmint" doctors all these years. I wonder, when he passes away, if he'll opt for a burial in the Soviet Union - the same place he honeymooned in?

 

[Debra K]

Your stated belief is an oxymoron. Justice means fairness. The concepts of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law", which are embodied in our Constitution, have fairness (justice) as their foundation.

Wrong!! Justice is about every single individual being pubished every single time they beeak the law, and that punishment being as unpleasant as the harm caused by the crime. It's also about ebsuribg the law protects the VICTIMS, never the criminals. THAT is Justice.

In your vision of a more perfect nation, one that disbelieves in individual liberty, who is in charge of the morality police? Who gets to be the dictator? who gets to be the oppressor of freedom? how can oppression possibly be equal to justice?

Nobidy is in charge of determining Morality. That is written into the Founding Documents, which are not able to be ammended or changed. The Government is tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those Foundational Documents, not debating their merits. Rwalize thst I do not belueve in a Right to act in an Improper or Immiral manner.

That's where your definition of "nationalism" differs from mine. Loyalty "under all circumstances" isn't a feasible goal because people are not single-minded robots ... they are individuals with minds of their own and sometimes they sharply disagree. What you are describing is citizenship in a country where dissenters are exterminated. Fear of extermination is not equal to loyalty to country. I love my country and I'm proud of my country in large part because I have the freedom to dissent against national policies that are oppressive.

If you dissent, then leave. If you choose not to, then your dissent us tantamount to Treason abd should be treated az such.

If you're talking about treason, then yes ... treason is a crime. Conservatives and progressives agree that treason, as defined by law, is wrong because it causes grave harm to our national interests. Again, your thesis that true conservatism embodies nationalism doesn't hold water. Conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on nationalism. For instance, no one is going to buy the concept that only someone like a Nazi (who remains loyal to Germany even though it's marching the alleged undesireables to death camps) is a true conservative. You appear to be talking in circles and I don't think you've truly thought through your concept of true conservatism.

Nazis weren't true Conservatives because they chose murder, expansionism and conquest over Isolationism. Outside of that they were pretty close.

No rational person is going to agree that true conservatism embodies isolationism as you describe it. The fact that you would allow people to escape the ideal nation you describe (where loyalty must exist under ALL circumstances) and thus communicate with the outside world means that the world does not drop off sharply at the border.

I think you're missing something. There would be no communication in or out. Those who are caught trying are executed for treason. Now, you may choose to take a boat and attemp to make some sort of trip out. When the Navy stops you at the edge of International waters, you would be boarded to ensure you have no extra property, have all citizenshop papers revoked and be reminded that any attemp to turn back will be met with lethal force. With no incoming or outgoing air travel, that means of escape would be out and leaving by foot would require a process slightly more intrusive than getting through the Berlin Wall.

Seceding from the Union, under your definition of nationalism was a disloyal thing to do. The civil war gave rise to the post-civil war amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution), which secure FREEDOM for all persons within our borders. And again, freedom means liberty and justice for all (you can't have liberty without justice, and you can't have justice without liberty). Like what happens when traveling all other circles, we are now back where we started. True conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the basic concepts that you appear to cherish.

Wrong. Voting for Lincoln was the Treasonous Act. The Confederacy held the true beluefs of America, not the Union.

Anathema: It is clear that we disagree. I don't know your background or where you get your information. I am unaware of any facts or law that would support the things you have written. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[jillian]

if hillary's the candidate you won't vote.

and if bernie is the candidate we can't win.

so there ya go. but feel free to stay home.

I don't agree that Bernie can't win the election.

If he's not the presidential candidate, I will stay home. I won't vote for "evil" even if some people believe Hillary is the lesser evil.

I never thought Trump would make it this far but he has.

Hillary is by far the most experience and capable candidate but her age is catching up with her. Sanders does't have a chance getting anything he has proposed through congress. Rubio lacks experience and credibility. Cruz's own party can't stand him and his political philosophy is so ridge he will never be able to work with congress. Trump is just plain crazy.

Why does Sanders have to carry all the water for us? Voting him into office is just the first step. The next step is to hold each member of an obstructionist Congress accountable. If we're unwilling to take the first step because the next step requires further effort on our part, then we're lazy and deserve what we get. We need to clean house from top to bottom.

because 70% of the people in this country have said they will NEVER vote for a socialist.

i understand that idealistic college kids love bernie. i love bernie and would be happy to hang out with him.

but a socialist .... particularly a socialist jew.... is not going to be president.

go look up mcgovern. then get back to us.

I understand from the foregoing that you won't vote for a "socialist jew" and you already know that I won't vote for Hillary.

This isn't 1972 and Sanders won't be running against an incumbent president . . . and on and on and on. I'm calling this logical fallacy: False Analogy.

your understanding is limited by your biases. your only "undersnd[ing]" should be that 70% of the people in this country have said they will NEVER vote for a republican. and that doesn't even touch the issue that bernie isn't a democrat.

i'm a grown up. i know what happened to mcgovern. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. the right already calls him "crazy bernie". what do you think they'll do to him if he's the nominee?

i also think our president should have a basic understanding of foreign policy. bernie's answers are inadequate.

 

[jillian]

Your stated belief is an oxymoron. Justice means fairness. The concepts of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law", which are embodied in our Constitution, have fairness (justice) as their foundation.

Wrong!! Justice is about every single individual being pubished every single time they beeak the law, and that punishment being as unpleasant as the harm caused by the crime. It's also about ebsuribg the law protects the VICTIMS, never the criminals. THAT is Justice.

In your vision of a more perfect nation, one that disbelieves in individual liberty, who is in charge of the morality police? Who gets to be the dictator? who gets to be the oppressor of freedom? how can oppression possibly be equal to justice?

Nobidy is in charge of determining Morality. That is written into the Founding Documents, which are not able to be ammended or changed. The Government is tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those Foundational Documents, not debating their merits. Rwalize thst I do not belueve in a Right to act in an Improper or Immiral manner.

That's where your definition of "nationalism" differs from mine. Loyalty "under all circumstances" isn't a feasible goal because people are not single-minded robots ... they are individuals with minds of their own and sometimes they sharply disagree. What you are describing is citizenship in a country where dissenters are exterminated. Fear of extermination is not equal to loyalty to country. I love my country and I'm proud of my country in large part because I have the freedom to dissent against national policies that are oppressive.

If you dissent, then leave. If you choose not to, then your dissent us tantamount to Treason abd should be treated az such.

If you're talking about treason, then yes ... treason is a crime. Conservatives and progressives agree that treason, as defined by law, is wrong because it causes grave harm to our national interests. Again, your thesis that true conservatism embodies nationalism doesn't hold water. Conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on nationalism. For instance, no one is going to buy the concept that only someone like a Nazi (who remains loyal to Germany even though it's marching the alleged undesireables to death camps) is a true conservative. You appear to be talking in circles and I don't think you've truly thought through your concept of true conservatism.

Nazis weren't true Conservatives because they chose murder, expansionism and conquest over Isolationism. Outside of that they were pretty close.

No rational person is going to agree that true conservatism embodies isolationism as you describe it. The fact that you would allow people to escape the ideal nation you describe (where loyalty must exist under ALL circumstances) and thus communicate with the outside world means that the world does not drop off sharply at the border.

I think you're missing something. There would be no communication in or out. Those who are caught trying are executed for treason. Now, you may choose to take a boat and attemp to make some sort of trip out. When the Navy stops you at the edge of International waters, you would be boarded to ensure you have no extra property, have all citizenshop papers revoked and be reminded that any attemp to turn back will be met with lethal force. With no incoming or outgoing air travel, that means of escape would be out and leaving by foot would require a process slightly more intrusive than getting through the Berlin Wall.

Seceding from the Union, under your definition of nationalism was a disloyal thing to do. The civil war gave rise to the post-civil war amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution), which secure FREEDOM for all persons within our borders. And again, freedom means liberty and justice for all (you can't have liberty without justice, and you can't have justice without liberty). Like what happens when traveling all other circles, we are now back where we started. True conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the basic concepts that you appear to cherish.

Wrong. Voting for Lincoln was the Treasonous Act. The Confederacy held the true beluefs of America, not the Union.

only to treasonous neo-confederate insurrectionists

 

[Anathema]

Anathema: It is clear that we disagree. I don't know your background or where you get your information. I am unaware of any facts or law that would support the things you have written. Thank you for the discussion.

Yes, we do disagree.

I'm an American. My most recent immigrant ancestors came here more than 115 years ago. The first ones came here withib 25 years of the Pilgrims arrival. They all came here for rwo reasons..... The opportunity to make their own lives and a belief that this nation would support proper morals and values. I doubt any of them would come to THIS country today. I was taugh Traditional morality, values, and a belief that what one Should do always superceeds whst one Wants to do. My family has a long tradition of military service and a belief that there are things worth dyibg/killing for.

My beliefs are based on thise morals, values and traditions along with my famiy's and my personal experiences. I velueve most of the current Government of this,nation is at best illegal and at worst immoral to the core.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Food for thought.

 

[Arianrhod]

I believe that Bernie tells what he believes is the truth. I do not think that he lies. The problem is that he is truely bat shit crazy. He actually believes the crazy shit he says.

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

 

[PredFan]

I believe that Bernie tells what he believes is the truth. I do not think that he lies. The problem is that he is truely bat shit crazy. He actually believes the crazy shit he says.

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

Hmmm...looks like reading and reading comprehension is a chronic problem for you. Tough luck.

 

[Arianrhod]

I believe that Bernie tells what he believes is the truth. I do not think that he lies. The problem is that he is truely bat shit crazy. He actually believes the crazy shit he says.

Guess you'll just have to wait and see how many of his supporters compare to Cruz supporters, huh?

Your reading problems bad today eh?

Because you're a Cruz supporter, or you aren't anymore?

Hmmm...looks like reading and reading comprehension is a chronic problem for you. Tough luck.

So you're no longer a Cruz supporter, and you figured if you deflected long enough people wouldn't notice.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your stated belief is an oxymoron. Justice means fairness. The concepts of "due process of law" and "equal protection under the law", which are embodied in our Constitution, have fairness (justice) as their foundation.

Wrong!! Justice is about every single individual being pubished every single time they beeak the law, and that punishment being as unpleasant as the harm caused by the crime. It's also about ebsuribg the law protects the VICTIMS, never the criminals. THAT is Justice.

In your vision of a more perfect nation, one that disbelieves in individual liberty, who is in charge of the morality police? Who gets to be the dictator? who gets to be the oppressor of freedom? how can oppression possibly be equal to justice?

Nobidy is in charge of determining Morality. That is written into the Founding Documents, which are not able to be ammended or changed. The Government is tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those Foundational Documents, not debating their merits. Rwalize thst I do not belueve in a Right to act in an Improper or Immiral manner.

That's where your definition of "nationalism" differs from mine. Loyalty "under all circumstances" isn't a feasible goal because people are not single-minded robots ... they are individuals with minds of their own and sometimes they sharply disagree. What you are describing is citizenship in a country where dissenters are exterminated. Fear of extermination is not equal to loyalty to country. I love my country and I'm proud of my country in large part because I have the freedom to dissent against national policies that are oppressive.

If you dissent, then leave. If you choose not to, then your dissent us tantamount to Treason abd should be treated az such.

If you're talking about treason, then yes ... treason is a crime. Conservatives and progressives agree that treason, as defined by law, is wrong because it causes grave harm to our national interests. Again, your thesis that true conservatism embodies nationalism doesn't hold water. Conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on nationalism. For instance, no one is going to buy the concept that only someone like a Nazi (who remains loyal to Germany even though it's marching the alleged undesireables to death camps) is a true conservative. You appear to be talking in circles and I don't think you've truly thought through your concept of true conservatism.

Nazis weren't true Conservatives because they chose murder, expansionism and conquest over Isolationism. Outside of that they were pretty close.

No rational person is going to agree that true conservatism embodies isolationism as you describe it. The fact that you would allow people to escape the ideal nation you describe (where loyalty must exist under ALL circumstances) and thus communicate with the outside world means that the world does not drop off sharply at the border.

I think you're missing something. There would be no communication in or out. Those who are caught trying are executed for treason. Now, you may choose to take a boat and attemp to make some sort of trip out. When the Navy stops you at the edge of International waters, you would be boarded to ensure you have no extra property, have all citizenshop papers revoked and be reminded that any attemp to turn back will be met with lethal force. With no incoming or outgoing air travel, that means of escape would be out and leaving by foot would require a process slightly more intrusive than getting through the Berlin Wall.

Seceding from the Union, under your definition of nationalism was a disloyal thing to do. The civil war gave rise to the post-civil war amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution), which secure FREEDOM for all persons within our borders. And again, freedom means liberty and justice for all (you can't have liberty without justice, and you can't have justice without liberty). Like what happens when traveling all other circles, we are now back where we started. True conservatism doesn't own a monopoly on the basic concepts that you appear to cherish.

Wrong. Voting for Lincoln was the Treasonous Act. The Confederacy held the true beluefs of America, not the Union.

Dude.,..just move to North Korea.