Trump... if only he was thrown out of a window.
"Build a wall around Mexico!"
Then what about the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean?
"Ban all Muslims from entering the country!"
That won't stop terrorism. Also, is it based on religion or heritage?

@TBest - That is why looking at someone's record in office is SO important. But it requires independent research. The media won't tell you all those answers so you have to find them yourself. But the supermajority of Americans are too lazy or too "busy" to do this. So we get stuck with bad candidates every election year.

Just based on the voting records and public comments of Sanders, Clinton, Bush, Rubio, Trump, and Graham I know they won't do anything close to fulfilling those three goals I mentioned.

Benjamin is semi-right - we need isolationism again. The again in italics is because people seem to forget that the foreign policy of the USA for most of its nation was isolationist unless it concerned our sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. It worked for Washington and Jefferson...it should work for us today.

i can't read that WSJ article without a subscription (and who in their right mind would subscribe to toilet paper?) but i did find a rebuttal that doesn't refute WSJ's "facts" (facts in quotations cause you have to be a real rube to believe anything they say).

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/carlmahler/blog/2015/09/what-wsj-article-price-bernies-programs-really-means

and more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/15/1421477/-Hey-WSJ-Your-Hit-Piece-on-Bernie-Sanders-Got-a-Fact-Check-and-It-Failed

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-wall-street-journal-gets-totally-wrong-about-bernie-sanders-agenda/

i could go on, but i won't. google is a thing.

^^I love how you responded to my supposedly biased WSJ article with 2 ultra-liberal slanted websites (DailyKos and The Nation). Nice job boy. Just proved my earlier point on independent research.


http://www.allsides.com/blog/bias-ratings-change-wall-street-journal-and-others


By the way: WSJ editorial reports are right-leaning but the paper as a whole is centrist. You can't say the same for DailyKos and The Nation. Although Stephen F. Cohen who writes for the Nation is a great historian and man. I write to him often. People should check out his podcasts and lectures.

Benjamin is semi-right - we need isolationism again. The again in italics is because people seem to forget that the foreign policy of the USA for most of its nation was isolationist unless it concerned our sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. It worked for Washington and Jefferson...it should work for us today.

I'm tempted to embrace isolationism, but I'm always reminded of the nagging fact that stubborn isolationism is what kept the U.S out of WW2 for so long. Nazi Germany conquered most of Europe and we didn't do anything aside from loaning out supplies and providing a few naval escorts. We're lucky that the U.K and USSR were able to pull their weight until the U.S received it's wake up call at Pearl Harbor.

If the Isolationists of the time had their way the U.S would of watched all of Europe and Asia burn without lifting a finger to help.

i provided four examples to your one. they are left leaning because a right leaning news source wouldn't try to correct misconceptions about a left leaning politician. you provided one side (although not really, cause it is behind a paywall), i provided the other (times four). and the others had specific facts and sources to refute the WSJ claims. facts don't lean any which way.

Everything is biased, INCLUDING facts. {This is a fact}

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to write what Eklipse just wrote :)

Edited 12/9/2015 02:58:48

Everything is biased, INCLUDING facts.

if that's the case, then what's the point of knowing anything? you have just demolished the quest for knowledge. scientists should immediately commit suicide. all books should be burned and all computers smashed. if i can say any silly thing that comes in my head and it has just as much validity as the truth, then why are any of us even debating this?

bernie sanders will be the next president because his penis is infinitely longer than any other candidates' (except hillary's), and trump, rubio, and rand have bestiality orgies every thursday. bush is actually a blow up doll in a suit being puppeted by satan. and mike huckabee and chris christie will actually influence the rotation of the planet by stumping in the same cities.

"if i can say any silly thing that comes in my head and it has just as much validity as the truth, then why are any of us even debating this? "
You just found the secret of all politicians. Let's start your campaign right now! ~shyb for President 2016~

Seriously though, there may be no point. For example you will never be able to prove the existence of a God - or yourself. Personally I think of biases some sort of additional margin of error. What makes something more credible, is however yet another layer of bias. Essential bias is an unknow margin of error.

For example you will never be able to prove the existence of a God - or yourself.

"I think, therefore I am."

^+1

Love a good Descartes reference when used right ;)

But, you are ASSUMING that you are thinking. What it all humans are a program? Here your biases is trusting your own judgment. (Yes, I am well aware of the irony from me trusting myself.)

Edited 12/9/2015 04:26:35

libcucks btfo

I'm tempted to embrace isolationism, but I'm always reminded of the nagging fact that stubborn isolationism is what kept the U.S out of WW2 for so long. Nazi Germany conquered most of Europe and we didn't do anything aside from loaning out supplies and providing a few naval escorts. We're lucky that the U.K and USSR were able to pull their weight until the U.S received it's wake up call at Pearl Harbor.

Stubborn isolationism? America was profiting big time from military industry, loaning (even more profitable than selling) and selling stuff to mainly Britain, but all over Europe, along with continually provoking Japan to war, and when it finally did get into the Pacific War, it was even better for America- the propaganda drew Pearl Harbour as if it was a full surprise, but "the American folk must go on". Also, Britain was very able to "hold its weight" for a very long time, the Germans had no chance at invading the island with modern British air defence systems and an insufficient navy, and so started a (perhaps unwinable, from all the American resources) attrition war. As for Russia, well, it was doing more than "holding its weight", and American supplies did not significantly help, too few and poor.

I could hold what you're saying if you talked about Japan and China, but you aren't - and furthermore, pragmatic politics by this time dominated everywhere.

^