Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA

erier2003 writes: Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position, just as cybersecurity issues loom large over the 2016 election, from email server security to the foreign-policy implications of data breaches. The Senate is preparing to vote on CISA, a bill to address gaps in America's cyberdefenses by letting corporations share threat data with the government. But privacy advocates and security experts oppose the bill because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.

Comments

"the only presidential candidate"

[ErikTheRed]

You mean besides John McAfee. Who is also certifiably insane, but at least manages to be interesting while being so.

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you ought to take a play out of his book instead of libeling him. He's the multimillionaire. You most certainly aren't.

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

and also Rand Paul? https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

The becoming a multimillionaire part might have occurred before the insane part.

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unassailable logic!

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[JoeMerchant]

Pretty sure he couldn't have afforded the drugs, or lifestyle, that led to the insanity before...

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

*Also* certifiably insane.

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you're that rich, you can no longer be insane. Just eccentric.

Re: "the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Ron Paul. Rand Paul, people may totally disagree with, but grounds for certifying insanity would be what again?

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Aryeh Goretsky]

Hello,

Mr. McAfee behaved oddly before the success of McAfee Associates.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN doesn't even list him as a candidate. They list Joe Biden, who as of this writing isn't running for anything. Biased, any?

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[qfman]

Accept Rand Paul is also insane, but in a scary way.

Re:"the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

McAfee likes to DUI while packing heat. too. As POTUS charges would never be brought and DoD could slay his antagonists.

Re: "the only presidential candidate"

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak as if insanity and politics don't mix. I would argue that it's the current set of legislators who are insane.

Hippy generation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.

Re:Hippy generation

[fustakrakich]

I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.

Sorry, no can do. Bernie's job is to keep that money inside the democratic party. They can't let any alternatives get a foothold.

Re:Hippy generation

[bobbied]

Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.

Oh let them have their fun. Like the Republican race, their "A" team hasn't taking the court yet. Right now both teams are warming up on their side of the court throwing field goals and free throws still in their warm up clothes, the officials are still working their way to the time keeper's table and the box seats are only half full. There is 59 min still on the clock. Hillary isn't even out of the locker room yet and this Sander's guy is out making layups as fast as he can and dreaming about the points he's going to make once the game starts while Trump is throwing in 3 pointers from half court and only sinking 1 in 10 shots dreaming the same thing.

Re: Hippy generation

[Anonymous Coward]

^ bullshit

impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sensible and patriotic policy position by Bernie Sanders.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.

The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especially medical) breakthroughs come from here.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when you suddenly thrust everybody into making the same amount of money, and if Bernie had things his way, we'd see a lot of this:

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

And when you apply that on a national scale, it turns into a brain drain. Right now we're the opposite; the best and the brightest tend to want to work in the US, and I'd hate to see that go away.

Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when people like Bernie get elected, namely that of Francoise Hollande, who did most of the stuff that Bernie advocates, and not only did France see a resulting massive drop in tax revenue, but a lot of wealthy people flat out left France, and the unemployment rate went way up.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

your a doosh.

Re:impressed again.

[NoKaOi]

Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).

Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed....

It's also funny how people get so upset about a social program for college education, but are perfectly OK with a social k-12 program. Also social security is probably the one program that the government did right, and it's not out of money like republicans want you to think. When Bernie Sanders is talking about making billionaires pay there fair share, he's not saying that we should charge them a higher rate, he's saying that we should charge them the same rate as everyone else, but not have a cap like they currently do. As it stands now, there is a 200K cap on the social security payments. So all of us middle class people get to pay 6% of our checks to social security, but if you're a billionaire, then you get to cap at a certain level which means they're essentially paying less than 1% of their earnings.

Re:impressed again.

[ITRambo]

Times have changed. The biggest growth in US socialism in the past 50 years was George W. Bush's Medicare drug expansion. He was supposed to be a Republican. I have a hard time telling who the players are these days just by looking at the team they're supposed to be on.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

And you can't spell.

Re:impressed again.

[byrddtrader]

The different political parties can be put on a simple line, on one end you have anarchy(right), on the other you have total government control (left). A democratic socialist is just further to the left on that spectrum than a democrat. Fortune ran a article that estimated Bernie's policy proposals would cost 19 trillion dollars over 10 years (google "estimating Bernie sanders policy cost") in addition to our current budget which is running at a deficit already. What he is proposing sounds great to a lot of people but it seems disingenuous to campaign giving away a bunch of free stuff to people that will not get the bill for it. On another point he proposes that the top tax rate should be 90%, even that this rate he would not bring in enough extra revenue to pay for his 19T in extra spending. Taxing the rich sounds great if you are not rich but its not the panacea to cure all our budgetary ills.

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

I've established a fair reputation here and I've been pretty consistent for the duration of my stay. It should be well known that I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian though the moniker is, really, Classic Libertarian. I'm neither a follower of Rand nor a believer in anarcho-capitalism nor a conservative - by any stretch of the imagination. I've explained this, time and time again actually. I'll spare you the details unless you promise to read them and do so with an open mind but, rest assured, that the vast majority of Libertarians are nothing like the caricatures that you see on television or see people self-identifying as on the internet. I know, no true Scotsman. However, it's true. Wikipedia (just the first four paragraphs is enough) is actually pretty good - I was quite surprised.

So don't think that the angry parts of what is to come are directed towards you - they're not. I actually agree with you but will need a minute to explain. Sound fair? Okay...

Now, my beliefs are very strongly that the rights belong to the individual (and no, businesses have rights but they're really friggin' low on the list) are the most important and must be balanced with the rights of the whole. Government should be small but powerful. It needs to be. No one political ideology will ever be successful in its pure form - we're too human for that utopia and almost all of them could be a utopia if it weren't for those pesky humans.

I encourage you, and anyone else, to realize that Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - the two are far from inseparable. Again, rights must be balanced with the favor going to the individual. An example might be that I strongly support a social safety net, libraries, roads, education, welfare, and a reasonable taxation rate. Why? Because it's cheaper in the long run and more economical to prevent harm than it is to cure it. When we, as a society, can increase ourselves unilaterally then we all benefit. It is for my benefit. I don't want raving mad, disenfranchised, horded of hungry storming my house and taking my shit. I paid for my shit because I like it and I'd like to keep it. I want you to keep your shit too.

I want you to be free to do with your body what you will. If the object of your affection or lust doesn't mind then cram whatever into whatever hole you'd like. What ever you want so long as you're harming only you and the person with you - it's cheaper to just accept it and move along than to fight it. You want to be a freak? Get freaky with it. Have a good time, post pics, and slap *it* on the ass once for me.

This is your typical Libertarian but, unfortunately, our voices are drowned out by the idiots who can speak the loudest and by those who choose to opine without any actual knowledge. This is partially my fault and I apologize. See, rights come with responsibilities and accepting them is one of the most important things. That there? That's me accepting accountability and this is me attempting to change it. You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue. Well, maybe not you but hopefully you get the idea.

Anyhow, I mention all that to mention this...

Of all the people who are currently running for the presidency slot - Sanders is the most likely candidate to get my vote. He is also the recipient of my money and will surely get more depending on how things go. I'd prefer to see him run as a American Socialist Party candidate, I think it would be more honest, but that's okay.

Why is he my favorite? Of all the candidates he's the only one that I've seen who puts the valuation on rights in the correct order. The individual, the group, the government, the businesses. That seems to be his thinking and I could pick at it a bit but, you know what? It's CLOSE ENOUGH. He's the best we've got and he's not even a member of our party. I'd love to have a chat with him and put him under the flaps of our tent. He'd be welcome if we could shut the mouthpieces up for a while.

Anyhow, it is

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

Hmm... One nit to pick... I usually see the left saying that social security is doomed to run out of money and that it is the fault of the Republicans for robbing the piggy bank and leaving it full of IOU slips.

Maybe I'm mistaken but that's been my observation. Perhaps one, or both of us, is subject to confirmation bias? It could be me but I tend to see both sides as evil and wrong. I actually see the left as more wrong because they're smarter than the right and should know better so, I guess, it could be my own biases? I seem to recall the Republicans want to just gut it and put it into private hands so they can use it to siphon off more money. They're just stupid. The left is willfully ignorant and is subject to harsher judgment because they should know better - they're smarter than that.

Re:impressed again.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know, you'd think what with being drenched with the blood of millions, socialism would rebrand. I love how it has to be qualifed with "democratic" socialism - to distinguish it from the non-democratic kind that puts right-wingers in prison. You know, it's funny, socialists always sound really good up until you put them in office. How's Venezuela working out these days? Oh, right, they just put their leading right-wing political future in prison for the next 15 years.

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

I have accumulated what you would call wealth. Not only do I pay every nickel I am obligated to pay in taxes but I spend far more than I can write off, I can not decrease my tax burden any further, just in donations to worthy causes. I consider those donations my obligation. I consider those donations to be a part of the social contract. I did not get to where I am on my own. I give back because I can. I appreciate being able to do it with donations because then I select where my 'tax burden' really lies.

However, to go further down the rabbit hole, again - you seem to think those who have accumulated some wealth mind being taxed? I will happily increase my tax burden and not let it impact my spending or my investments provided the money goes to sound investments and is reasonably spent. People wonder why capital gains taxes are so low, the reason is to encourage those people who can to invest because their money helps the world go 'round. Thus they are penalized less when they put the money to work for the greater economic benefit.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but, no... I don't mind or begrudge my taxes. I only get taxed on what I spend anyways. I don't even get taxed much on that and I am able to reduce my tax burden to really low percentages just by doing my aforementioned civic duty in the form of donating to worthy charitable causes. There are a lot of other ways I can, and do, reduce my tax burden. If you raise my tax burden to 90% then I'd really only be paying that 90% after a pretty damned huge amount of expenditures - expenses I don't normally actually incur.

I'd probably not reach that threshold on a regular basis - I simply don't actually take my money out of my portfolio and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck. (I don't have *that* much anyhow.) So long as it stays invested then I don't pay really a nickel on it and that's not going to change. I'll continue spending as much as I spend now (maybe a little less if I actually cared about taxes but, really, no - that's not even going to be a concern if I want something) and actually pay somewhere around the same percentage that my neighbor's pay.

Here's the bottom of that rabbit hole... I don't mind. I do mind that they're currently spent unwisely. I'd actually be happier paying for programs like Sanders offers to try to implement. (You don't think Congress is going to let him have half the stuff he wants, do you? He'd be president, not king.) If I minded taxes then, you know, I'd just "bounce up on out of this bitch." (I think that's the appropriate colloquialism.) There are other countries who will make me a citizen just for investing a few dollars. I already have citizenship in Canada by grace of birth and ethnicity - I'm more than 1/4 Native American, Micmac if you're curious, and I'm sure they'd absolutely love to have me. I already own property there.

No, we need to be taxed higher than we are. This shouldn't trickle down to the middle class. It sure as hell shouldn't affect the impoverished. We need to be taxed more, maybe allowed to write off more by donating but that's another subject entirely, and the money needs to be spent wisely. Investing money in bombing brown people is not a good investment. Investing money on a war on chemicals is not a good thing. Investing money on warehousing people for victimless crimes is not a good thing. Investing money on wasteful bureaucracies is not a good thing. I could go on.

I don't get to make the rules so I'll happily listen to the social consensus. But, really, we have so much money (as a whole) that there's no excuse for us having the issues we have. It's simply unacceptable.

Hmm... I'm particularly ranty tonight. Sorry - no offense meant. I'm going to post it anyhow. Meh... Maybe someone will read it. I'm not hugely wealthy by some folks standards - not even really that rich. I'm certainly in the 1% and probably closer to the .2% if I recall the statistics posted at one point. I spend more on a bunch of silly cars and computers than I

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid drooling easily trolled idiot you are. But hey, I still look forward to your next insightful political analysis.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS, where do you people come from? Have you ignored the last 50 years of history? Sanders is a god damned socialist, by fucking definition, neither "patriotic" nor "sensible". Go read a fucking economics textbook, you moron.

Re: impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I already pay 40 cents per dollar earned.

I'm not greedy for having worked hard and saved well. Greed is thinking you deserve a share of what I earned, when you did nothing for it.

Re: impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely not a Libertarian in any way, shape, or form. You are a red-blooded Socialist who lost his dictionary. Literally every thing you said was the antithesis of libertarian ideals. You're like the blind black man who hates niggers.

Re: impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are what is wrong with the party. Sorry folks - this is why I speak out. I encourage those in doubt to actually read the suggested Wikipedia article and understand that the AC above is a lunatic. I think I like them. I'm going to keep them as a pet.

KGIII - Slashdot's being mean again. :D

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's just plain ignorant. You have confused socialism with totalitarianism which is another common mistake people make and socialism isn't a dirty word. We already accept public police, schools, roads, all sorts of things. Someone like Bernie is advocating that government makes sense for more in some facets and less in others. He doesn't want to be involved in the middle east for instance which costs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than ANY of our social programs. The war on drugs? That's a even more billions down the drain that would be much better spent on a treatment, homeless shelters, and many other programs that would actual solve the cause of a whole lot of crime in this country.

How's Socialism working out? How much blood does Canada have on its hands? How much about Britain? What about Australia? Germany? There are a great many countries out there that are far more socialist than the U.S. and doing quite well, without all the rendition to boot.

No country is perfect, so much of our economy is wasted on complete bullshit, imagine if the billions spent on the Presidential campaigns and the billions spent for Senate and Congressional seats actually went into good causes like ensuring an elderly woman can get healthcare or how many people we could properly educate? We could have fusion power if we weren't dicking around spending money on stupid things. If we were energy independent we would have no need to interfere with the middle east and the bad will would go to Russia where it belongs instead of America which seems to bomb doctors without borders because somebody said so and we couldn't be bothered to fact check because in the heat of the battle every second counts which is why we shouldn't be involved in the first place.

There are things the capitalist side of this country are great at, there are definitely things that are better handled by government. It used to be that both sides debated this and we had steady progress, we even had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton era. Then Republicans threw money hand over fist at the rich and powerful and down it all went. Obama didn't do enough to stem this and is now considered an accomplish to this mass handing of money over to powerful financial interests. It is very strange that in the last 60 years the stereotypical tax and spend Democrats have been the only ones exercising any fiscal responsibility despite the Republican mantra.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he is a socialist. There is no way we will elect an open socialist after we finally get done with hidden socialist. Also, a very high change he is saying it for votes and change his mind after being elected... I mean... he IS a Democrat, and that is what Democrats do. say whatever is required to get votes then stab America in the back.

And remember how much people were impressed with Obama? Yea, look how that turned out. People need to learn to look at past actions not false promises

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Bernie as President doesn't have the power to do most of that. He can only coerce congress into actually doing something. The Republicans have been so focused on making Obama fail that they are hurting the country as a whole to do it. That is just plain crazy. The fact that you seem to condone it is also crazy.

The right wing side of this country really wants to paint everything as if it was all black or white. It's not all or nothing. The odds are you could actually set tax back the way they were before the Bush tax cuts and cut spending on unnecessary wars and you could get yourself much closer to a balanced budget again which is what the right squandered while Bush and the Republicans controlled both branches.

Bernie saying that 90% isn't too high is not the same thing as saying he would raise taxes that high. He has to work with others to arrive at a compromise which will be significantly less than 90%.

Re: impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given your likely income, you probably are paying too much. I submit that my burden should be higher and your burden (probably) lower. There's no reason why I should pay a lower percent than you considering I'm only taxed when I actually remove and spend money. I'm only taxed on capital gains and I understand the reasoning but I could easily pay more. I'd not even mind paying more if, as I said, the money went to reasonable causes - we can't go back and we can't stay where we are. That leaves forward. Preventing problems and enabling more people is actually a lot cheaper in the long run than trying to save money now. I'm not suggesting we spend your money at a greater rate - I'm suggesting we spend mine at a greater rate and with greater effect.

Sorry, Slashdot's said I've posted too much today and this is true. I probably won't see a reply so if you want me to see it when I wake up then tuck it up under another reply where I didn't post as AC. I'll respond assuming it's a reasonable reply. If I wasn't clear then I am sorry. I'll try to say anything I can think of in this post.

If you're paying 40% of your income in taxes right now then you're probably not in the tax bracket which I'm referring to. I'm quite explicitly referring to those people who have amassed some wealth and get the majority of their income through capital gains. I'm sure there's more that could fit into the category but you're probably not in the tax bracket where I'd even consider raising your taxes. I think that some of the percentages paid by the "middle class" are absolutely deplorable.

I pay my neighbor to take care of some work for me. He has a farm so it's part time. I pay his wife to cook and clean for me. I pay them both quite well. Yet they pay a higher percentage of their income than I do. No, I'm not going to pay more than I'm obligated to pay. I avoid taxes, I don't evade them. Evasion is illegal, avoidance is my duty. I'd probably not even go through the hoops of avoidance if I were assured the money would be spent wisely. I do try to make up the difference (and I do) by finding causes that mean something and actually help people. EFF, Red Cross, Heifer International, and Habitat for Humanity are my current favorites. So, I try to do the right thing but it's not always easy to figure out what is right and what is wrong - there's a lot of middle ground in there. I'm not perfect and I won't ever be.

Anyhow, I doubt that you're in a tax bracket where I'd want your taxes increased. I think taxes should be more dynamic than they are. They should also take into account more things than they currently do unless one hires an expensive accountant. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to write off tools that you need to do your work - or at least a portion of them if you're using them for more than just working. You should be, in my opinion, able to write off your car's depreciation and your gasoline expenses for work. You should be taxed on your "profits" like a business. Business should also pay their fair share - they certainly aren't now. Not the mom and pop shops, those guys are probably paying more than there share - I know we did when we were little yet when we expanded we got tax breaks. I do understand why some of those policies are in place but they're rife with abuse and many companies seem to be legitimately paying far less than they should.

That's just my two cents. This isn't written in stone or anything. It's simply my opinion and I am not, by any means, an authority. I fully expect that there are areas where I'm mistaken and areas where my ideas can be improved. I will say, again, that we can't stay where we are and we sure as hell can't go backwards. We've got to do something before the house of cards starts to fall. I humbly submit that prevention is far easier and less expensive than picking up the pieces but if you want to burn it to the ground and start anew I'd suggest you think clearly about how that will impact you. I'm not saying that is what you want to do but, you know, if you do...

Re:impressed again.

[dryeo]

You're confusing the authoritarian line with the economic line. Fun facts, anarchists have traditionally been leftists and libertarianism started out as a leftist philosophy. Generally rightist, at least the successful ones, are authoritarian, sometimes they want small government so the government doesn't interfere with their authoritarianism, think of the mafia or the Mexican drug cartels, both right wing business types who want less government interference in their businesses.
Take a look at the political compass, http://www.politicalcompass.or... and perhaps take their test. Here's their take on the 2012 US election, http://www.politicalcompass.or... Here's an article on libertarian socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:impressed again.

[Burz]

Wow, that's just plain ignorant. You have confused socialism with totalitarianism which is another common mistake people make and socialism isn't a dirty word. We already accept public police, schools, roads, all sorts of things.

A concise example of Democratic Socialism is the UK Labour Party. It means that state ownership is "on the table", as in their NHS healthcare system (which has recently been partially privatized), and the democracy is a core value including democracy in the workplace - unions. Democratic Socialism is widely considered center-left.

Re:impressed again.

[dave420]

You sound like a well-educated 8-year-old arguing why his country is the bestest in the world - lots of hyperbole, lots of massive (incorrect) generalizations, and dripping with conjecture. You're not making a very compulsive argument, but you are showing everyone just how ill-informed you are about the country you live in, and how quickly you will form an opinion with the scantest of evidence or opinion.

Re:impressed again.

[dave420]

You really should stop making quite so many generalizations - it's not "the left" or "the Republicans" but "some people on the left" and "some Republicans". Lumping everyone together will make your argument incorrect.

Re:impressed again.

[DanJ_UK]

"why all of the world's best tech firms are here"

It's that kind of ignorance that gives American a bad name, fortunately over the other side of the pond here we're not so ignorant to generalise that all Americans are ignorant idiots.

'All' of the world's best tech firms are not, in America, in fact the largest one in the world by revenue is in South Korea.

Re:impressed again.

[DanJ_UK]

America*

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent contributed a thought-out comment and included links to support his stance. You "contributed" an ad-hominem attack that comes down to covering your ears and screeching "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU AND YOU'RE A STUPID DOODOOHEAD". Yet, you sit at +3, while parent got downmodded to 0. Stay classy, Slashdot, you're definitely not a cesspool.

Re:impressed again.

[T.E.D.]

Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA.

This is untrue. Hillary's campaign has not yet released any position on CISA. I suspect you'll find a lot of the Republican "Freedom Caucus" against it too, but I don't have the stomach to check.

She's actually in a bit of a weird position on any pending legislation. As both the "presumptive nominee" (for now) and a Clinton, her coming out against a bill is the one thing that can guarantee its passage in the Republican House. If its mostly a political football bill anyway (eg: The Keystone Pipeline), more's the better for everyone. But if its something that really might do some serious damage to the Republic if passed...

Re:impressed again.

[dywolf]

Every time you speak you reveal your stupidity.

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

I should probably even refine it further to emphasis that it's also generally only those vocal members of either side. I kind of assume people are smart enough to know that it is not everyone. It appears that I am mistaken.

Re:impressed again.

[JimFive]

Except, he's not a Democrat, he's an Independent.
--
JimFive

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Canada, Britain, Australia, and Germany aren't socialist. They have varying degrees of mixed-market economies, but while they have socialized some things, the majority of the economy is not. Socializing industries works well in some countries, not well in others; a lot depends on how trustworthy the government in question is. Using that metric, I don't particularly want to give the American government more power, even if the implementation seems good otherwise.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

And in spite of all of that writing you just did, you failed to make a salient point.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

Actually when I made that statement, I was just echoing something that a few European governments have lamented. More details here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

If you disagree, then go take it up to your own leadership who is now resorting to legal tactics to try to push out American competitors to local European firms for no reason other than they just can't manage to produce a good enough product to effectively compete on the global economy.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

Except that Bernie as President doesn't have the power to do most of that.

So what do you intend to elect him for then?

The right wing side of this country really wants to paint everything as if it was all black or white. It's not all or nothing.

Define right wing please.

Re: impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when you suddenly thrust everybody into making the same amount of money, and if Bernie had things his way, we'd see a lot of this:"

You've seen one instance, and Gravity seems to be doing fine. They lost some senior people who felt butthurt because they weren't treated like royalty, but those people will be replaced. People who don't need to make more money than their neighbors won't care.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than an idiotic point.

Re:impressed again.

[DanJ_UK]

TFA you linked is talking about companies based on size, not technological innovation, it's misleading to say a technology company is not 'one of the best' just because they're not the size of Apple.

I can speak for the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden in saying we're all fantastically innovative nations and have huge technology markets, the fragmentation may not lead to companies the size of Apple but to dismiss them entirely is naive at best.

You seem to also forget that your Apple behemoths have development offices in London et al and brain drain a lot of talent from Europe that I've been categorically told time and time again you lack in places like Silicon Valley; this last point is particularly important, most of your huge firms got that way because of your rather relaxed antitrust laws compared to Europe. Whether that makes them good or bad is a debate that depends on too many factors that aren't even covered in your article.

Re:impressed again.

[jwhitener]

with social ownership of the means of production.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government

Either Sanders is incorrectly using the term, or he really does want a lot of the means of production controlled socially. I suspect he believes in the later. I would support more ownership of things by the people/government, especially when they are common resources. Like, I'd much rather have my city own the internet service, just like water/sewer. Infrastructure should be 'owned by the people' in some way, shape, or form.

If he really does believe in social ownership of ALL means of production, that would be a problem. If he believes in a good mix of capitalism and socialism, letting each system's strength dictate what realm they should govern, that would make more sense, and I wish he was clearer about it. I know my parents and most of their friends are confused by what he means by 'democratic socialism'.

Re:impressed again.

[metrix007]

You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue.

This part of your post comes across only as arrogant.

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

Of course it does. That's because I'm better than you.

Actually, that wasn't my intent. It was mostly typed due to frustration and I probably should have skipped it. Thanks for pointing out how you perceived it. I'll make a mental note and try to avoid it in the future. I'm actually the kind of person who realizes he doesn't know everything and is willing to shut the hell up, listen, and accept that I'm wrong and learn something new. In fact, it kind of surprises some folks here when I do.

Again, thanks for pointing it out. That was certainly not my intention nor was I being arrogant (I don't think) or at least not intentionally. It's just that tomorrow some idiot claiming to represent the Libertarian party will, again, do something stupid and everyone will assume that this is true for all of them just like the left will assume the most outlandish person on the right is the norm and the right will assume the same thing but in a different direction. That and, well, loads of frustration... Loads of it...

Re:impressed again.

[Perky_Goth]

The first link maybe, just maybe, has to do with the size and population of the US, and the second, if you bother to read the comments, is a non-story.

Re:impressed again.

[strikethree]

so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.

No. It is not. It is for you. It is (currently) for me. I know many who can not easily get the bare essentials. Living a sheltered life is a wonderful thing but you need to find a way to see outside of your little bubble before making such pronouncements.

Life is grim for quite a number of people in America.

Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I don't think the vote of the tinfoil hat crowd is going to push you past Hillary, let alone into the White House.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

That much is certain..

Best he can hope for is that Hillary get's charged with a crime due to this E-mail thing and has to drop out leaving only Biden and him. However, being she's not been charged yet, it's very doubtful she ever will.... Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[PopeRatzo]

Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...

I don't know if you remember about this time in 2007, but Republicans said the exact same thing about Obama. How "Americans would never vote for a guy with the middle name "Hussein"" and "America wasn't ready for a black president". The entire campaign season, through April of 2008, was "Hillary is the presumptive nominee". Remember how Fox News had the "Stop Hillary Express"? Just don't be surprised if a filthy pro-gun socialist hippie is gonna drink up your milkshake.

Be careful what you wish for, Republicans. You might want to look at the turd logs in your own eye before howling about the speck in someone else's.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie is actually polling significantly better than Hillary's opponent 8 years ago, at this point in the race. (hint: that was Obama)

Of course, that doesn't really guarantee anything ... but should be a good precedent to not rule anyone out quite yet.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

Oh Bernie would be huge fun for the republican field (even Trump).

Oh and I don't discount the history of Hillary and Obama... Sanders' situation is different.... 1. He's an avowed leftist socialist with a long political history (despite his attempts to claim otherwise). There is LOADS of video and audio material to use so he'd be easy to paint with that brush and where this appeals to the left of the Democratic party, it's a turn off to the center. (Obama was little known, except to people from IL so he was a blank slate and could be anything necessary to win). 2. He's male. This whole "war on women" thing which as been under development in the democratic party for more than a decade is not going to play in his favor like it will for Hillary. 3. He's white. Like it or not, Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color. I know the democrats don't like to admit this and the republicans like to make more out of it than it is, but in 2008 this was a unique thing. Obama's campaign played that angle and angered the Clintons by doing so having "used the race card on us" according to Bill Clinton who wasn't happy about it.

So, I really don't expect Sanders to last once Hillary's campaign gets underway. It's nearly 4 months before ANYBODY will be voting in the primaries, it is WAY too soon. Right now it's about MONEY and having enough of it to sustain your campaign though a couple of primary votes where you place high enough to get more MONEY. Right now, Hillary has the cash and all she needs to do is keep the front runner within reach, which isn't a problem because SHE is easily the front runner without spending a boat load yet. Sanders is whacking away at the little money he has already trying to stay relevant to the base and get as many donations as he can so he can weather the storm coming once the Clinton Campaign machine roars to life sometime near the holidays. I'm guessing she times it to start on new years and hit full tilt the second week in January. She will be handily on top of the polling by the start of February, unless something unforeseen happens with the E-mail thing (which is pretty remote unless she really is as stupid as "You mean wipe it with a cloth?" sounds, which I don't believe for a second).

No, Bernie is but a side show in the democratic nomination process and he will be lucky to be in this thing money wise by February. He's unlikely to get a even a prime time speaking slot at the convention and will not be anybody's choice for VP. As much as she likes to play dumb, Hillary knows this game and knows how it's played and she will run circles around Sanders with her knowledge and money.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[PopeRatzo]

Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color.

So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color.

So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Not nearly as many. Despite what gets said about racism in this country, the truth is there are far fewer actual racists than there used to be, especially among white Anglo Saxon population, even in the south. There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you more voted for Obama because "he looks like me" than voted for Romney or McCain for the same reason.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[PopeRatzo]

There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you

So, you don't know, but you can "assure me..."?

Friend, your battle flag is showing.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

The Clinton campaign machine hasn't even been started yet and Sanders has apparently struggled to match her in the polls. She's not worried, nor should she be. Hillary is out running his campaign's funding 3 to 1 and out spending him by the same margin. Hillary has twice the amount of cash on hand and is taking in 3 times as much. Sanders will make a show, but unless he has a winning streak in February and places first in the majority of the initial primary states, he's going to slowly be bled dry of cash and donations in states where his socialist populist play won't resonate very well with democratic voters.

Unless Sanders tops Hillary by at least 10 points in the polls moving into when the actual voting starts, don't fool yourself. His path to the Whitehouse involves some pretty improbable things happening along the way.

However, I do admit there are two wild cards which could help him. Hillary's difficulties with this E-mail server thing and Biden's entry into the race at some point. Depending on exactly how all that happens, he *might* be in contention. But things will have to play out almost exactly right for Sanders. Clearly this E-mail thing is hurting Clinton and Clearly Biden is waiting for something to throw his hat into the ring or not. If Hillary takes a dive on the E-mail thing, withdraws and Biden jumps in at the same time, Sanders is in the same place. But if Biden jumps in late (after the primaries start) and/or Hillary gets forced into withdrawing late there just might be enough daylight for Sanders to squeak in. Any other possible scenario kills him either by the Clinton campaign machine or the seasoned Biden who will have all the money at that point... Even if Hillary shrugs off the scandal (which I expect) and Biden jumps in before the primaries start in Feb 2016, Sanders will loose nearly all his funding and die quickly after the first set or primaries, with Hillary likely winning the nomination fight over Biden fairly late in the process.

If it plays out surprise free and it's not Hillary, it's going to be Biden and not Sanders.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

I grew up in a poor part of a southern state as minority poor white trash though my family was not indigenous. I was from northern roots where color didn't mean anything, yet we ended up there where it did. The high school I went to was over 90% of one race, and it wasn't white. I don't consider myself an expert in race relations, but I survived and escaped from the very hell hole where the racial divide is very apparent and deep rooted on both sides. As an outsider, I observed both sides of this issue, at least as it existed where I lived. I can assure you that my former classmates, unless they have changed their perspectives over the last 30 years, would have been motivated by the common color to actually turn out to vote. That the Junior Senator from IL enjoyed exceptional turnout among those of common race at a much higher level than those voting for either McCain or Romney for the same reasons. Of this I'm totally sure, and the exit polling shows for BOTH of the last two elections.

Your mileage may vary... But IMHO you'd be wrong.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[KGIII]

There are more racists in the north than the south ever dreamed of having - and yes, I'm not white. Well, not totally. They're just a little more subtle about it.

Don't take offense but the north reminds me of this "joke" which, while sort of funny, is still all too true...

Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.

Funny? Maybe a little, I guess - I'm part black. (I'm Native American, White, and have somewhere under 1/8 black in me. Not a whole lot but my hair shows it.) What it really is, is a sad statement of how it really is in the north. I've been all over this country - literally. There's no racism like the 'not racists.' The reason they're not racists is because there's nobody there but white people.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have literally never heard anyone publicly support Hillary (other than a few people who actually admit things like "I just want a female president"). I hear glowing things about Bernie every day, from all aspects of the political spectrum.

Yeah, he's behind in polls right now because most people vote for who they've heard of more than anything else, and Clinton is a household name. Bernie's support is growing at record speeds, though, and there's still plenty of time to go before primaries.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

I can tell you've never been to any of the "big cities" of the north. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston just to name a few are *very* diverse places. I have never claimed that racists don't exist, only that they are becoming less and less common, especially in the south where the older white Anglo Saxon racists are dying off faster than they get created. It is literally "out of style and out of step" to be white and hold racist views. The culture is changing.

A wise man once said that you will know when racism is gone because nobody will be talking about it anymore. I add that you can tell who the racists really are by who is talking the most about it.

BTW, your joke is offensive and not even a little funny to this old white guy from the south. I literally don't care and rarely notice the color of those around me. However, I do perceive that there are many who do care, mostly those who see an old white guy with a southern accent and assume I'm something I'm not and treat me differently. I've seen racism by whites and have been upset by it, not because it was directed at me, but because of how stupid their reasons are. I've also seen racism by blacks, which was directed towards me because of my color, and where it makes me uncomfortable, I don't let it upset me. I figure that the only way this ever really gets stopped is by being slow to take offense when treated badly, being quick to disapprove when others are treated badly and trying to treat others as would want to be treated. Until the majority adopt this view from all "sides", racism will still exist in some form.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[KGIII]

I've been from one side of this country to the other, from the top and to the bottom, across the continent in both directions, and across the globe. Your claim doesn't mimic my experiences and I expect, as an old white guy, you're probably not subjected to it and have a pretty piss poor ability to judge. But thanks for your opinion.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should stop listening to Fox News. You can get skewed statistics everywhere, but the raw numbers show Bernie dominating Hillary, and he's even got a fair number of Republicans choosing him over Trump. It's unprecedented how much popular support he has; never in American history has a presidential candidate gotten so much popular support. And he effectively has negative values of media coverage! This is why there are Bernie 2016 signs literally all over America. There is not a city in the US that doesn't have a strong Sanders volunteer group, even my podunk Conservative town has one!

Hillary can fight, but she can't win. Bernie is undercutting her in popularity by the day, and there is no sign of the trend reversing anytime soon.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Have you been to many "big cities" in the South? They're also pretty diverse. Honestly, I don't think it's a North/South thing; it tends to be more of a rural/city thing. Rural NY, for instance, is incredibly racist. New Orleans? Not really.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[bobbied]

You know, there is some truth to that, having lived both in very rural and very urban environments in my life.

But I would say that racists exist in both rural and urban areas, they just tend to be different colors, at least in my experience....

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

That's fair. I think rural racists also tend to be more open about it, while racists in cities are sometimes less public with their racism.

The country is too big

[Anonymous Coward]

With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.

Re:The country is too big

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why states rights are so important.

Re:The country is too big

[thaylin]

They are important, but not violate the constitution, or hypocrisy important.

Re:The country is too big

[0123456]

They are important, but not violate the constitution, or hypocrisy important.

Why not? The Federal government violates the constitution every day.

Re:The country is too big

[fyngyrz]

Why not? The Federal government violates the constitution every day.

People run over other people with cars every day. So why not do it yourself?

Could it be because it's a really bad idea, same as the proposition you are putting forth with your question?

Truly a conundrum for the ages. :)

Re:The country is too big

[Anonymous Coward]

The feds are the ones who routinely violate the constitution at much lower fundamental levels..

Re:The country is too big

[BradleyUffner]

With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.

Civil Rights shouldn't be negotiable.
Also, poor people have a disproportionately hard time moving across town, so across the country is just not an option.

Re:The country is too big

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition of civil rights is negotiable and it can evolve over time, too.

Re:The country is too big

[dave420]

I can't believe this is the first time you've heard this, but two wrongs don't make a right, or to paraphrase the High Sparrow: their sins don't forgive yours. Usually people learn this by the time they're small children, which is rather perplexing...

Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so the other socialists have dirtied their names with their hypocritical acts and policy, but WAIT!! THERE'S MORE! Vote for this guy! Yeah, he's a statist, but he promises to do everything you want! This is what they did with obama after 8 years of bush (you know, the party that's been watered down to status of pro-life feminist?). We fell for it, and now the left is trying that tactic again, on the outside chance hillary is too toxic to win. However, that's unlikely, so, I'm sure at some point in the race, he'll step down and cast his support in favor of her, and tell his would-be voters to do the same. All part of the strategy.

I'm tired of schlocky sales pitches like this trying to justify taking more and more money and rights from me. I'd like that spending brought under control, and the latter returned, please. Stop inflating the currency. No more corporate welfare, either. No more bailouts. Let those companies battle it out in a freer market. Get the NSA back on track for its original mandate (foreign intelligence). I don't want to be monitored everywhere I go, IRL or online. We have enough labor in this country, so close the borders for awhile, until the economy picks up and we have true labor shortages. Why should americans invest in education/retraining if there's no job waiting for them? Speaking of that, no more state guaranteed college loans. They drive up tuition.

Re:Just what we need..

[Dutchmaan]

I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance...

You do realize that in order for "no more bailouts" to be effective in not dragging our economy down if they are required, large companies (banks) need to be broken up into smaller more competitive (i.e. less powerful) entities. Banks like power, and don't want to be broken up into smaller more competitive chunks.

..and don't even get me started on reigning in the NSA. That's probably a bigger feat than breaking up the banks!

How do you propose these be accomplished?

Re:Just what we need..

[blue9steel]

While the legislation would never pass due to entrenched interests, the method is actually pretty simple: Tax them. If big companies have to pay extra taxes then they'll shrink down to whatever size is just below the threshold.

Re:Just what we need..

[PRMan]

The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".

Re:Just what we need..

[JoeMerchant]

And who is spending the most on the candidates this election cycle?

(Hint: it ends with "anks" and doesn't start with Tom.)

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

At which point, they'll throw lots of money at the critters in congress who are writing the tax laws so that they include a few nice, shiny & new loopholes to get their net income below whatever threshold you, or anyone else, proposes.

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yanks? That makes sense...

Re:Just what we need..

[J053]

At which point, they'll throw lots of money at the critters in congress who are writing the tax laws so that they include a few nice, shiny & new loopholes to get their net income below whatever threshold you, or anyone else, proposes.

This is why corporations should be taxed on gross income, just like individuals. I don't get to deduct all my customary living expenses before paying tax on the balance of my income - if corporations are people (spit) why should they get to do so?

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".

Actually the bailed out banks should have probably been nationalized (the US owning all/most of the shares), and then once things were settled you could break them up a lot more easily (since the public owns them). Few contracts / loopholes.

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

... should be taxed on gross income, just like individuals ...

... at increasing marginal rates, just like individuals. Corporate apologists spend a lot of time saying how un-empowered corporations are, but corporations can spend and keep money in ways a breathing taxpayer can only dream of. This concession to the love of money is what makes corporations so dangerous. Doubly so since there's no advantage to giving a corporation more money. It creates another problem as the corporation becomes "too big to fail", removing competition (among suppliers) from the market.

In reality, tax havens and tax breaks in other countries force corporate tax rates lower. It is another spiral to the worst-case scenario caused by 2 supposed servants of capitalism: Money and corporations.

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason they got that big in the first place was due to government favoritism in return for campaign financing. At that level, everyone knows everyone else. The other issue is deficit spending. The ruling class is borrowing on the backs of the middle and lower classes, driving up inflation as well as taxation (increasing it just enough to cover the inflation in many cases).

There are no candidates that cover exactly these issues. The problem is that I think sanders is the obama of 08. The neo-JFK to rally the left wing base. Eventually he'll step down and throw his support for hillary (or whoever the front runner ends up being). European style socialism isnt' really that different economically than the USSR. Look what the EU has done to greece...and thanks to all the propaganda over several generations, what did greece do when given another chance? They voted in a far left government. What do you think they will do? Pay off the debt? Hardly.

Re:Just what we need..

[cjb658]

Or they'll pass the taxes on to customers in the form of fees.

Re:Just what we need..

[roman_mir]

The economy is dragged down by the bailouts, bailouts are always the wrong thing to do if you are looking for a sound economy in the long run and not for a repeat of the same problem down the road only bigger and worse.

Re:Just what we need..

[John.Banister]

How do you propose these be accomplished?

Create the FBIC (Federal Bailout Insurance Corporation). Banks and other organizations that are too big to fail (and any organization that wants the insurance) - and any institution having the special privilege of being a primary dealer with the Federal Reserve - have to buy Federal Bailout Insurance. Anyone who buys it can't have any transactions held in secret from the FBIC, so that they can analyze the risk and set the insurance rate. Once too big to fail means "must buy bailout insurance," they'll break themselves up by spinning off divisions so that they can avoid the burden of having to buy the insurance. Then, they'll try to gain the benefits of size w/o being big by colluding, and the SEC can put people in jail (you know, if they ever actually did that to their buddies on the other side of the revolving door).

Re:Just what we need..

[KGIII]

You know you can incorporate and actually write a whole lot of shit off, right? Seriously - spend the money to hire a lawyer and get an accountant. I know that it costs you money but it actually saves you money in the long run. You need a president, a vice president, and a treasurer. They can't be the same people, obviously. They can be family. Then start a family business - do so, for real.

Go fix a computer or two for a few bucks on the weekends. Don't get fake receipts. Make investments. Operate as a business. Check with a lawyer and an accountant. You'd be amazed what you can write off. If you're daring you can start a contracting business and hire yourself to do the job you're currently doing. (Really, check with a lawyer.)

Just make sure you also do other business instead of just working that one job. (Did I mention checking with a lawyer?) And keep accurate records - now your vehicle is a company asset (also an accountant - check with one of those) and things like your computer's depreciation are now valid concerns at tax time. (Don't forget a lawyer.)

Your total business doesn't even have to turn a profit every year. You can 'lose' money to save money. This is not tax evasion - tax evasion is illegal. This is tax avoidance and some say it is your duty to do so. (Don't forget that lawyer.)

I am not a lawyer nor an accountant. This is neither legal advice nor accounting advice. If I were a lawyer I'd sure as hell not be your lawyer and this is in no way considered advice beyond suggesting you check with qualified professionals.

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably 'shanks.' It's the prison industrial complex in action.

Re:Just what we need..

[dryeo]

The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".

Actually the bailed out banks should have probably been nationalized (the US owning all/most of the shares), and then once things were settled you could break them up a lot more easily (since the public owns them). Few contracts / loopholes.

But that's Socialist. Every time I hear someone claim that Obama is a socialist, I think of how he handled the banks.

Re:Just what we need..

[houghi]

I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance..

https://www.isidewith.com/elec... because it is better to vote rationally. Unfortunately most people will vote emotionally.

People still will vote for the party they have always been voting for, even when the ideas do not agree with their own, because voting for the other is even worse, for whatever reason.

Re:Just what we need..

[sociocapitalist]

The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".

A lot of shit happens that 'should' have been done differently but because the politicians are owned, entities like VW and the people running it who broke the law will go relatively unpunished due to a 'get out of jail free' clause in the 'clean air act'.

Re:Just what we need..

[blue9steel]

They could try but as long as there were other smaller competitors in the market then the customers wouldn't stand for it.

Re:Just what we need..

[SydShamino]

This is important, because this is how we can reign in corporate "free speech". The Constitution, so sayeth SCOTUS, might give corporations the rights of people, but nothing in the Constitution gives certain types of people a favorable tax status over others.

Now, we have a long tradition of granting favorable tax status to certain groups, but that tax status often comes with restrictions attached. For example, to be a non-profit corporation, a corporation person is often required to publish quite a lot more financial data than a for-profit corporation would of similar size and ownership. Those non-profit corporations might also be restricted from using their funds for political speech. If they violate these rules, they haven't necessarily broken a criminal law, but their favorable tax status can be revoked.

So why don't we just do the same with regular for-profit corporations? If you want any of the speech rights of a person, above and beyond trade speech required to market, sell, and service your products, you have to pay income tax on your gross, not net. If you and your shareholders prefer your favorable tax status, so you can go about your business of being a business, then stop pretending you are a person, limit your speech to trade speech, and go back to being what you are supposed to be.

Re:Just what we need..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that is a bot commenting, right? I've seen that exact same blurb posted all over the internet, word for word. There is no use in arguing with a bot. The conservative troll armada is in full fight mode.

Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[raymorris]

Looking at how candidates are responding to this Rand Paul has been pushing several amendments addressing the privacy concerns of CISA.

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Rand Paul advocates for our privacy and has done so for longer than half of Bernie Sanders' life(since he's like a million years old thats a long time).

https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a blind squirrel encounters a nut on occasion. Rand Paul is against CISA because he wants to eliminate the entire federal government. NOAA, NWS, NASA, all would be gone so that UmbrellaCorp executives can get rich selling all of us the weather forecast (along with an umbrella). No national park service, no DOT to manage the interstate highways, no FAA to ensure that planes don't fall out of the sky and onto your house. Rand wants it all gone, replaced by the strong invisible hand of capitalism. Thanks but no thanks.

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

But Paul is a Republican, and they hate freedom. Hate freedom.

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

Rand Paul is an idiot with a horrifying voting record. Just because his views coincide with yours on this one issue doesn't make him a good candidate, even for you. You really want to support a guy who in all seriousness appeared on the Glen Beck show and reasoned that the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage opened the door to marriage between people and animals? How about the fact that he's one of the Benghazi conspiracy nutters?

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that guy! SERIOUSLY! Rand Paul has some very dangerous ideology that is not in keeping with our Constitution. But don't worry, the way he is polling he will continue in his father's footsteps...into the halls of irrelevancy!

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

But Paul is a Republican, and they hate freedom. Hate freedom.

You realize you don't have to reflect your stammer when you type, right?

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[ganjadude]

citations???

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[dog77]

Rand Paul's position on marriage is to get government out of marriage and allow everyone equal access to make legal contracts. http://www.politico.com/story/...

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with lots of things Rand Paul says. However, he's still an idiot and his voting record is public information. He's as much a Libertarian as I am a Communist. He's a conservative - fiscal and social. We need to move forward because where we are right now isn't working and we obviously can't go back.

Me... A Libertarian... Will not be voting for Paul. I've voted for his dad though. He's half the man his father was and has the social graces of an ape. He's not fit to be president, at this time. Maybe in the future when he matures a bit. I do like him in office though. I'm hoping he's tumbled around like a stone and it takes off his rough edges and makes him shine. He's got a long ways to go but he does appear to be coming around.

Unfortunately, he has to appeal to a bunch of flippin' lunatics.

KGIII (Sorry, Slashdot is being mean. They hate me. They want me to die. DICE is run by Republicans. They hate me and want me to die. It is the way of their kind.)

ps. Sorry - but that troll is still amusing to me. Yes, yes I am a five year old. I'm just a very old five year old. If you don't believe me, leave me alone with a big red button that says to not push it.

Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[SuperKendall]

Since Clinton opted to share everything up to top secret emails with the Russians, Chinese, or simply anyone skilled and a little curious she obviously doesn't see why it would matter to anyone if they were sharing data with a government.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[JoeMerchant]

Not saying she wasn't reckless, and not saying that the next fool that follows in her footsteps will get away as cleanly as she appears to have, but...

The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.

The other value of secrecy is wrapping up everything you can justify in TOP SECRET clearance, so if anybody does crack a TOP SECRET file, odds are what they find will be worthless, or, if they get a bunch of it, it will take them an unreasonably long time to figure out what they've got. Really tight intelligence systems would replace 99% of coded traffic with intentional misdirection so that leaks are detectable before the good stuff gets out, and I'm guessing this type of security is some of what was missing from Hillary using hotmail.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[Anonymous Coward]

I just cannot bring myself to vote for a woman and I'm a lefty. I prefer patriarchal leadership. Always have, always will. I suppose my views are old fashioned, but that's OK.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[SuperKendall]

Not quite sure how the name of an active CIA field agent is ever a secret whose value "diminishes with time" with respect to the guy who is going to be murdered if the information leaks.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.

Bullshit! Obviously there would be a few things that lose value over time but other things not so much. Weapon technology comes immediately to mind. Me thinks you are attempting to be a subtle apologist.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[JoeMerchant]

The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.

Bullshit! Obviously there would be a few things that lose value over time but other things not so much. Weapon technology comes immediately to mind. Me thinks you are attempting to be a subtle apologist.

I wouldn't call it an apology so much as a: "Got away with it at the time, mostly by luck, probably best to not repeat the mistake in the future." Like any president (W or O), I wouldn't blame the individual nearly as much as I would blame the staff/system that surrounds them. If Hillary had staff specifically instructing her on proper security procedures, reminding her when she was violating them, and she was telling them to F-off because she is in charge, then, yeah, she should twist in the wind for that. More likely, this is just new tech that the whole upper level political circus isn't completely hip to; should they be? Absolutely! And I think after this little fiasco, they should be better about it.

Presidents used to ride in convertibles with the top down through urban canyons for tickertape parades... they did that for a little longer than they should and finally paid the price. I don't think that use of a personal e-mail account by a secretary of state quite rises to that level of hubris, but it is a very serious matter.

Either that, or she really did leak the identity of dozens of intelligence assets all over the world who were executed as a result of her carelessness, leading to us being in the dark about numerous world affairs that have led to the Chinese overrunning our economy, rogue states gaining nuclear weapons capability, and the Russians gaining access to extra-terrestrial technology from Area 51, but Bill and Roger have orchestrated a coverup so masterful that only a few people living today know what really happened.

The truth is probably somewhere between that fantasy and 100% harmless - I'd guess somewhere near the 99.44% harmless mark.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[dave420]

Your views are old-fashioned, and rationally not OK.

Irrelevant

[DoofusOfDeath]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

Re:Irrelevant

[Sloppy]

And yet, there is diversity and disagreement within the different candidates' campaign promises.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Great thing that Bernie Sanders has had a consistent voting record his entire political career then as well as his net worth is about $390,000.
His presidential campaign is being funded by the people not special interests and Wall Street hates that.

Re:Irrelevant

[fnj]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

OK, cynicism does resonate with some part of me. But when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.

Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.

Re:Irrelevant

[Gavagai80]

We're talking about a senator who has a vote on it. It's not a campaign promise, it's a senatorial decision.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Theories of american politics

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Re:Irrelevant

[ravenscar]

I'd agree with JFK being debatable. I'd say Jimmy Carter wasn't a sellout. Few would call his presidency successful, but few would call him a sellout.

Re:Irrelevant

[PRMan]

I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout. He did a LOT of things that a lot of people didn't like, almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...

Re:Irrelevant

[JoeMerchant]

the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding

Chief among these ways: passing laws to make things that a minority finds distasteful illegal... That's the problem with government, they try to govern.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan was terrible. His tax policies for the wealthy where extremely damaging to the country and he also repealed the fairness doctrine which removed the integrity from main stream media.

Re:Irrelevant

[bobbied]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.

That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.

HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?

But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...

Re:Irrelevant

[PopeRatzo]

He did a LOT of things that a lot of people didn't like, almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...

Like raise 90% of the population's taxes?

Like sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants?

Like give arms to Iran?

Like send death squads to Central and South America?

Like crap his diaper in the oval office?

Yeah, I'd say that Reagan did a lot of things that a lot of people didn't like. I would have to respectfully disagree about the "good of the country" part, though.

Re:Irrelevant

[sconeu]

Truman. Maybe -- and ONLY maybe -- Ike.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Like tripling the national debt.

Re:Irrelevant

[lbenes]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

While I would love to see a great distinction between to two parties, your black and white attitude bears little resemblance to reality. Do you really believe the War mongler John McCain would have passed a historic nuclear arms deal with Iran? Or any Republican for that matter pass a historic health care plan to ensure that even the poorest Americans have some form of health insurance.

You're attitude is toxic, and part of the reason we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the free world. If people got involved instead of having a cynical attitude that they’re all the same, we could get real change. Like a constitutional commandment to get corporate money out of politics, which I believe is the root cause of most of the problems in our system.

Re:Irrelevant

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Was that the doctrine that allowed government to heap massive financial liability on radio stations by forcing them to broadcast "the other political side's" trite, boring, and tired class warfare rhetoric?

Not counting NPR, of course.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

IBut when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.

Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.

Don't you wonder why that is the case? The DNC and RNC only let establishment candidates win the nomination. The game is rigged, we lose.

I'm going to keep posting this because it's important:

A new political science study that's gone viral finds that majority-rule democracy exists only in theory in the United States -- not so much in practice. The government caters to the affluent few and organized interest groups, the researchers find, while the average citizen's influence on policy is "near zero."

"[T]he preferences of economic elites," conclude Princeton's Martin Gilens and Northwestern's Benjamin I. Page, who work with the nonprofit Scholars Strategy Network, "have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." ...

One reason why I shy away from [the term oligarchy] is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK was the person who almost single-handedly guaranteed that from that moment onward, only multi-millionaires need apply for the presidency.

He wasn't a sellout, he was a buyout.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

his net worth is about $390,000

Why exactly would we want a poor failure as the President of the most powerful country on earth?

Re: Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but voting for someone nearly double my age with half my net worth isn't appealing. I don't make a ton but having a million dollar net worth before 40 isn't hard. Bernie does pretty well, where'd it all go?

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Or any Republican for that matter pass a historic health care plan to ensure that even the poorest Americans have some form of health insurance.

I haven't seen any Democrats pass one of those either.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike every elected president in modern history, Sanders' voting record has remained consistent throughout his entire career. Do you think he'd get elected president and immediately sell out his entire life's work?

He was supporting gay marriage forty (40) years ago, for fuck's sake! If that doesn't show you he's not a real politician, I don't know what to tell you. He's continually supported "correct" but unpopular and politically tenuous positions his entire career.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, for all this bluster about how politicians are all just scumbags who tell you what you want to hear, we can also take a second to remember that none of these positions can just make that happen. A president isn't a legislator, and can't do anything but rubber stamp yes or no on what congress does. And a lone congressman can't just make whatever single issue you wanted go the way you wanted it. Particularly with the POTUS, we let people get really worked up on promises that aren't even within their power to deliver.

Re:Irrelevant

[dywolf]

I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.

And you would be wrong.

almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...

OK not that's some funny #@% right there.

Re:Irrelevant

[dywolf]

I already educated you once on the Fairness Doctrine to correct your ignorance.

Do I really need to do so again?

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

his net worth is about $390,000.

That seems REALLY low. Do you have a source for that? I know 30 year olds in the midwest with net worths close to that.

Re:Irrelevant

[T.E.D.]

I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.

Depends on your version of "a sellout". He started political life as an FDR supporter, then changed his tune when G.E. started paying him to tour the country shilling for them in the 50's. So some might argue that he actually sold out long before he was ever elected.

Not needed, security companies do it without immun

[raymorris]

CISA attempts to increase the amount of shared knowledge about ongoing threats by creating a federal government bureaucracy which is supposed to facilitate communication. It grants immunity from law suits to any information shared through the new system.

This isn't necessary in order to achieve the goal. A federal program like this would be used almost exclusively by large companies, mom-and-pop shops aren't going to do 800 pages of paperwork to become a participating entity. Currently, the large companies who care about security -already- engage the services of security companies like Alert Logic or Fire Eye, who are -already- monitoring for security threats across their many client networks, and already raising the alarm when there are widespread indications of a threat in the current threat landscape. They do this without any special legal protection, and compete to see who can do it best. because they aren't immune from privacy lawsuits, they have to actually follow privacy laws (or try to, mistakes happen).

I seriously doubt that a government agency, with no motivation to do excellent work (but plenty of politically based mandates), would do better than the companies full of experts doing it already.

Also, the most important thing for companies in this space is their reputation - that their brand name is trusted. They have ample motivation to do everything in their power to be sure they don't -cause- a breach and to secure their own systems. Many of us know how secure government systems tend to be - almost as if they didn't care. Perhaps that is because hardly ever does any government program lose funding or any govt employee get fired for shoddy security. A breach of Fire Eye's network, or Alert Logic's, would have immediate and significant consequences for the company and the people responsible.

libeling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have mistaken one's opinion with Libel.

You should probably eat a bag of dicks now

Media headline edit: Bernie Sanders Comes Out

[Anonymous Coward]

There. Now you have a headline any good editing supervisor can approve for publication.

ep!..

[Anonymous Coward]

gu7s are usually

the white rural majority may like sanders

[better_resurrection]

to the surprise of the media & the establishment, I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat. Sanders does not like the open borders policies that some democrats advocate; he said open borders is how the plutocrats drive down wages... Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control. Sanders is an old time leftist...maybe what we need....I hope it is sanders vs trump in the general election

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control.

If he's for any of it at all that's a deal-breaker to many of these people that you speak of.

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? looks pretty gun control friendly to me. He wants to ban "Assault weapons", which is a made up term in itself (Cosmetic features that do not make the gun more or less deadly). Funny how particular safety features also turn the gun into an "Assault weapon" (Barrel shrouds).

Though he did vote to allow guns in national parks, to shield firearms manufacturers from liability for shootings and against a five-day waiting period for gun purchases.

Though the second one seems pretty common sense to me since we don't hold any company accountable for the misuse of their products.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices."

He voted yes

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

He voted yes

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
(Two days ago)

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say the words "Sanders v. Trump", my erection threatens to blot out the Sun.

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

Stand up straight and stop looking through a magnifying glass. You'll hurt your eyes that way, boy.

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[modecx]

Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control

I hope you understand how that's kinda like saying Ted Bundy wasn't all that friendly towards rape and murder. Also, does it suddenly smell of artificial turf in here?

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you understand how that's kinda like saying Ted Bundy wasn't all that friendly towards rape and murder.

I don't get it.

Ted Bundy did engage in rape and murder.

Bernie Sanders does not support gun control legislation. He's been clear on this point for roughly three decades.

Allegations of astroturfing seem baseless at this point. Care to expand on your previous comment?

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[T.E.D.]

I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat

This is actually the What's the Matter with Kansas argument. Basically that Democrats sold their (largely white) working-class base down the river to "move to the center" during the Clinton "Third Way" years, so now all those folks have left to vote on is social issues (where they tend to be conservative).

I'm not sure I buy Frank's argument entirely. For one thing he anchors it on the politics in Kansas, which is a really unique state politically. But it is a school of thought, and he could be onto something.

Re:the white rural majority may like sanders

[modecx]

Golly gee, anon. Are your eyes brown? Because you're full of shit.

With the exception of voting no on Brady, which was done more from the idealistic side of things (truth is he believed it didn't go far enough, and was too much a compromise), he's been very consistently anti on the big issues (so called assault weapons bans and so forth), but liberal (in the classic sense) on some more niche issues like checking firearms onto Amtrack.

You have to understand his mindset. He's a "Vermont sportsman", aka Elmer J. Fucking Fudd incarnate. Anything which isn't involved in durr hunting (i.e. Amtrack might garner business from hunters), he doesn't care about it; neither does he care enough about the Constitution to legitimately amend the 2A's militia clause, and would instead gleefully do any number of end runs around it to neuter it as he sees fit.

Honestly, that part is more worrisome to me than his ant-gun bent, but so it goes with the rest of the asshats in Washington. Despite the oaths they all swore, they only care about the Constitution when its somehow possible to use it as a tool to meet their ends (commerce clause).

Hell, the only reason Sanders made it to the senate in the first place is the Vermont Republican he was running against turned just as anti-gun than Sanders was at the time, causing the NRA to return the favor and cut off their nose to spite their face in retaliation: i.e. to endorse an openly anti-gun Democrat instead for the first time in like, ever. Sanders won very narrowly, probably thanks in part to that endorsement.

All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

but I will never vote for an avowed Socialist. Some of the Mr. Sanders' positions are downright wrong, especially for America. Just like Islam isn't compatible with Western governmental law and process, Socialism isn't compatible with American ideals unless you're a millenial.

What I want, Bernie cannot and will not give:

- Flat tax. Progressive taxation is what Europe has and so many EU residents are really struggling.
- Enforce current gun laws, don't attempt to ban guns like so many Socialists in the past have done -- and then went on to murder untold thousands and millions.
- Big government is not my daddy or anyone else's daddy. Get a job if you want to eat. Handicapped and those unable to work should and will be taken care of.
- Kill TPP and every other trade deal that sees record numbers of jobs going bye-bye.
- Implement single-payer healthcare, even if you have to overnight ruin the insurance industry. Canada did it. Paying a little extra in tax for healthcare is still far less than the sickening amount I pay now for my premiums. BTW, the idea of single-payer healthcare started in the US will Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you rationalize saying both "government is not my daddy" and "implement single-payer"?

Re:All Well and Good...

[mrchaotica]

Flat tax. Progressive taxation is what Europe has and so many EU residents are really struggling.

Oh noes! Not progressive taxation! Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...

Re:All Well and Good...

[laserhead]

How about go back to 1890s when there were much less tax and government spent only 10% of GDP. That is the time US increasing really fast.

Re:All Well and Good...

[blue9steel]

You might want to read up some more on that period and how it went for the average citizen.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialist leaders are either rich or stupid.

Therefore, they (the rich ones) know or they (the stupid ones) don't understand that income tax, which is for salary income, doesn't affect the richest people since their income originates from business operations or investments, which are lower taxed and are never targeted by socialists, but not from salary. So, progessive taxation only hurts the most productive workers in society, who don't have such huge investments but have enough resources to be mobile.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the Glided Age, when all the money went to Robber Barons, who owned the whole town, and brutally crushed any competition, often violently.

Good times.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with progressive taxation is that it "progresses". Some European nations pay almost 70% of their income in taxes when it's all said and done.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you want to abolish the military, open the borders to accept anyone who's physically capable of reaching the US, abandon all regulation of environment, food and drugs, and hand over control of the cities to gangs - then that's totally doable.

On the other hand, if you actually want the government to do stuff, that costs money.

Re:All Well and Good...

[phantomfive]

Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...

I prefer progressive taxation, but this is a myth.
Back in the 50s, there were so many loop-holes in the tax laws, that almost no one paid the full rate. To pay it, you basically had to get your entire income as salary (which is why some athletes were among those in the highest tax bracket). I'll bet you can think of ways to avoid that kind of tax, structuring your income to not be salary (or hourly).

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

History is not a strong topic of yours.

Re: All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what else Europe has? Air. So why don't you quit breathing?

Re:All Well and Good...

[mrchaotica]

To be honest, except for the military and borders part all the rest of that could be done by state or local governments.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, after they make $100 million a year. I feel sooooo sorry for the rich kid that inherited his dad's inherited wealth and now has to pay the appropriate tax on his unearned income and STILL has $29 million a year to squeeze a yacht budget out of.

Re:All Well and Good...

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

That's not correct, at least in terms of what people actually paid. Ostensibly, the rate was very high at the high income range, but very few people actually paid that, because there were even more (and larger) loopholes than there are now. Let's also not forget that the '50s were prosperous for America because most other developed countries had seen large parts of their industrial sectors destroyed (they were being rebuilt, yes, but still...) while America's was largely untouched.

Bernie is the Pepsi of politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the one... when your waitress walks over and mentions they don't serve Coke but would Pepsi be ok?

So America.... sorry we don't have a real leader ready fro you but would Bernie be ok?

Re:Bernie is the Pepsi of politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dems actually have a hell of a candidate in Webb, but he can't get support within his own party because he neither has a vagina nor does he spout socialist nonsense.

Re:Bernie is the Pepsi of politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary has a vagina?

Rand Paul also opposes CISA

[jasenj1]

https://randpaul.com/f/stop-ci...

"Therefore: I agree that the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, is non-negotiable and I urge you to Stand With Rand and oppose CISA."

Re:Rand Paul also opposes CISA

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that we're now in election season, so saying "Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position.." should be read... "Slashdot cares about Cybersecurity, Bernie Sanders cares about Cybersecurity, Vote for him!" Details about whether other people have the same position are ... ahem ... unimportant.

And the rest are like diet pepsi

[Anonymous Coward]

Filled with aspertame, you know the shit of the ecoli virus.?

Bernie Sanders Comes Out, Wins GayWAD Presidency

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~~)

Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:

1. 1. Ownership of a penis, an anus, or both

To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!

If you require a membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, sounding, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69. Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

[ ] I am gay
[ ] I am a wigger
[ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner

After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID. This unique number proves your fully extended member status in the GayWAD organization.

Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way!

* GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE or DHI.

** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.

Rand Paul... obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position [...]"

Last time I check Rand Paul is a presidential advocate and he is obviously opposed to CISA.

https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1

Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid platform. No one cares about privacy and no one cares about the problems with elections. The whole world is controlled by a handful of greedy assholes. We should take a line from hitchhikers guide and accept that the president is a celebrity comedian meant to dristract you from real problems.

Re: Bernie Sanders Comes Out, Wins GayWAD Presiden

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Very creative!

Sanders is Slummin for votes...

[bobbied]

Twice today we've been regaled by attempts from Democratic candidates to garner votes... One to get into the upcoming debate, one to save his boat full of holes...

Mr. Sanders, you are a bit late to this party and are by far NOT the only candidate to hold such a position this time around. Not that I support him, Ron Paul has you beat and he's not holding his fingers up checking the direction of the wind on this subject. Now if you are talking about the first DEMOCRATIC candidate to have this position, I'm pretty sure that Barack Obama voiced similar concerns about NSA data collection in both the 2008 and 2012 election cycles (not that it means he actually did anything) and I'm sure there are some lesser known candidates on our side who beat you to it as well.

You are NOT the first, you are NOT the only...

Re:Sanders is Slummin for votes...

[Gliscameria]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere that's being quoted as saying he is the only one, or the first one, and I doubt he wrote the article.

Errata

[Anonymous Coward]

because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.

because customers' personal information *WOULD* make up a majority of the shared data.

TFTFY

like the commission that Hilary appointed?

[raymorris]

> How about the fact that he's one of the Benghazi conspiracy nutters?

The commission that -Hilary Clinton- appointed to investigate Benghazi found that "senior leadership of the state department " was reckless, in the face of clear warnings, to the point that it "suggests the appearance of intentional neglect". That's Clinton's very own commission who came to that conclusion.

Rand Paul (along with anyone who has been paying attention) agrees.

Re:like the commission that Hilary appointed?

[Anonymous Coward]

And recently, the ex-soon-to-be-Speaker of the House literally admitted that the whole Benghazi investigation was invented as a smear campaign against Hillary. They literally admitted to it on video. He said what everyone knows but is too afraid to say, inadvertantly. Suddenly nobody wants him to be Speaker of the House. That is a major gaffe and strategy blunder.

Yeah, but what I wanna know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

....what's Charlie Manson's position on CISA? What do you mean, he's not running? We're stuck with losers like Biden, Clinton, Trump and Sanders? Sheeeeiiiiit!

Jew Headfake

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Judaism + Socialism claims to be against fascism. (From the summary: "letting corporations share threat data with the government.")

Too many isms come from Judaism. No thanks. Take all the isms and shitcan them. Learn to think without pre-packaged isms.

We have had too much of the Jewish dream already.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.zerohedge.com/category/tags/otc-derivatives

http://investmentwatchblog.com/90-of-700-trillion-derivatives-market-contracts-held-by-jpmorgan-goldman-sachs-bofa-citigroup-and-wells-fargo/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/16/who-owns-bank-of-america.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/20/who-owns-wells-fargo.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/19/who-owns-jpmorgan-chase.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/22/who-owns-goldman-sachs.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/21/who-owns-citigroup.aspx
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k
http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
^^very concise breakdown of the TPP without miles of rigamarole legalese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
^^Jewish TPP (incumbent)

https://encrypted.google.com/#q=yellen+bernanke+greenspan+jewish

And so on.. and so on.. and so on.. No thanks. Never met the guy and I wouldn't take his microphone like #blacklivesmatter girls did either. It would be a fool's errand to increase USA Jewry. That is the opposite of solving the problems. 18 Trillion dollars in debt with anti-Christian chicken whirling baby penis sucking Jews running the money and the propaganda conduits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhJSA9PUAJ0

 

Re: Jew Headfake

[Anonymous Coward]

USA jewery /pol/ is leaking

Re: Jew Headfake

[Anonymous Coward]

Which URL was a lie? Looks like all irrefutable facts.

Re:Jew Headfake

[MoarSauce123]

So we rather stick with the ultraconservative radical fascist born again Christians that make you plea your allegiance to a "nation under god", excel in faith based initiatives, and even have "in god we trust" printed on every friggin piece of currency? Sure, we are way better off with those folks. As far as people of Jewish faith are concerned, for centuries they were banned from working as craftsmen. The left only becoming a merchant, a banker, or more recently comedian. The facts claimed here are mainly results of historical circumstances and not an evil plot of "the jewry" to run the world. You should put things into perspective first.

Nike Free Run 2015 ,Nike TN Pas Cher

[jinhuaha]

superstar Derrick nike Free Run Rose debuted his new sneaker this past Friday (1/27/12) on the Bulls home court against the Milwaukee Bucks. Fuller, who has been the mastermind behind the AdiZero Rose line and other innovative Adidas Basketball designs, Have there been any changes to the Sprint System for the 2.5? es, the 2.5 is built similarly to the Crazy Light. For the 2.5 the Sprint System is stitched on unlike older versions where it was glued on. This not only saved us materials and proved to be a more efficient method of designing the sneaker, but it was also one way of making the sneaker lighter. The 2.5 is also My Coach compatible, which is a great tool for anyone who buys the shoe. We also improved the traction system. Going off your tarting from Rose?philosophy, how did you work with Derrick to improve on the design of the AdiZero Rose 2.5 from a style standpoint?s we explained for the 2.0, the style of the sneaker is just as important to Derrick as the sneake Nike Free Run 2013,Nike TN Pas Cher performance so we did make improvements to the style, From a style standpoint we saw great results from the 2.0. Our customers really http://www.mcmcey.com/ adopted the sneaker into their lifestyle. We don want to make changes for no reason, so to maintain high quality in that regard, we want to make sure that wee going to the right cities,

Typical Leftist Slashdot and Samzenpus

[EmagGeek]

Just completely ignore the fact that Rand Paul has been opposing CISA since the moment it was disclosed, and is far more of a privacy advocate than Bernie Sanders could ever be. The only reason Bernie is opposed to it is because he's scraping for votes. He's an admitted, unabashed, and unrepentant statist who thinks big government involvement in every detail of your life is the solution to the world's ills.

Dave420: Lots of hot air, no substance

[Anonymous Coward]

You proved yourself a big talking blowhard Dave420 http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> Anyone can "talk a game" Dave420 - very few of us actually play it (& you're not one of them, nor will you ever be - you're too stupid...)

... apk

Seems in character

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Well, I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'm with him on this. I admire his relative consistency and his desire to run a clean campaign, but I think most of his policies won't work well. Still, he should be commended for having some integrity, unlike most of the other candidates.

Re:Seems in character

[MoarSauce123]

Oh contraire! His policies are the only ones that would work...which is why they will never be implemented as that would impact the status and position of the rich and powerful.

effect isn't cause

[raymorris]

What he said is that Clinton's bungle had the -effect- of hurting her campaign. She didn't fuck it up -in order- to damage her campaign. And the Obama State Department has said very clearly many times that she fucked up. It was a political gaffe to "take credit" for exposing her incompetence or disinterest in doing her job.

Too bad

[MoarSauce123]

I would even beat the streets to campaign for Bernie Sanders if it wasn't for his ridiculous and lethal attitude for guns. That is a total deal breaker for what would otherwise be the only acceptable presidential candidate in the field right now. We need much less guns and much stronger restrictions while drastically reducing manufacturing of guns and ammunition. Unless of course we consider it the new normal to have regular mass shootings out of petty reasons and even toddlers shooting themselves or others on a weekly basis.