members of party: [wolf]japan77, [Falcon] TheFalconGuy, juq(ill add more if they join)
running for party leader:[Falcon] TheFalconGuy, juq (if you want to run just say so and ill add you to the list)

Edited 4/15/2016 07:43:39

Silence fool.

Dunno why you have a green/socialist party, they're different in a few ways.

I'll join for the green party anyways; it's way better then the democratic party.

Join the Libertarians, the lefts have failed as our allies.

Paugers, that's never gonna happen lol. That would happen only if both bernie and trump splited from the dems and republicans. And even if that happened, trump would hardly join the libertarian party...

The socialists are no better than the democrats or republicans. They want the wealth controlled by a small group of people, but these people would just be purely in the government instead of being a government/businessmen group. The working man will still be burdened by high taxes, wars will still be fought world-wide and the government will continue it's steady march to complete domination and subjugation of the American folk, and the folk of the world.

Folk of America! Unite to defeat the government and to free yourself from the shackles placed on you by thugs! Vote libertarian!

#votelibertarian #votefreedom #freedom2016

No. Bernie himself isn't against the fact that someone is rich, or that corporations can't have billions of dollars like they do have. He just thinks they should pay their fair share and not just send their money to panama. He's against foreign intervention and liberty supression we've seen lately.

And that's a global changing of "socialists" (which really aren't socialists, if you knew what the word is, you would know that bernie hardly is a socialist).

He's pro-foreign intervention. He was for it in Afghanistan, Iraq and Serbia, and supported numerous other interventions.

The 1% is nearly a branch of the government at this point, all interventions in the economy help them greatly , cutting away competition and granting them special rights. Sanders wants to shift the power balance a bit away from the 1% to the government more, not a improvement.

The intervention in afghanistan and serbia were both needed, even if they both were consequence of bad american policies in the past and resulted in shitholes. He was against the Irak intervention though.

The intervention in afghanistan and serbia were both needed, even if they both were consequence of bad american policies in the past and resulted in shitholes.

No, they weren't at all. Afghanistan basically started a country with the same laws as Arabia has (besides the difference between Hanafi and Hanbali jurisprudence). Serbia was doing the same thing that Israel does (by the way, Sanders is for Israel) to Palestine. Even if there was a just, unhypocritic cause, America purposely went in, not for that cause, but to wreck and break countries up.

Edited 4/11/2016 00:58:25

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm
(Report on no Ethnic Cleansing in Kosova before bombings)

Sanders used the same standard issue NATO propaganda lines for convincing folk that bombing Serbia indiscriminately.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

The Taliban offered Osama up to the US and we refused to even talk about it.


Sanders voted for giving power over to the president and throwing more money at the military for war in Iraq. If he was anti-war he wasn't anti-war for long.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:06:12

I have joined and I will run for party leader.

In serbia there was a terrible ethnic cleaning, not intervening would create the same thing that happened in rwanda.

Idk about the afghanistan offering bin laden to the US, I'll need to read more to know about that; If they really did, the war was in fact useless. If they didn't, the war was necessary principaly to show that terrorism on that scale wouldn't go off unchecked.

So you choose to ignore a official German intelligence report in favor of major media groups? Typical leftist interventionist.

#BernieGang

not intervening would create the same thing that happened in rwanda.

You know, America stands up for what's right. That's why strategically useless countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea can fight a bloody, pointless, antigeneven, inconclusive war whose effects are still being felt today (for example, Ethiopia sponers violent Islamic extremism in Eritrea, and Eritrea has such a demographic problem after that war that they shoot anyone who tries to flee the country), but when stategic countries on some petrol are invaded, then it's time to take over another, even more startegic and petrolic country that resists against American bullying, then it's time to call a freedom war.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:59:00

^Yea, that's true, arguing against that is pointless and stupid.

I'm mostly against invervention in any country if it doesn't have an outstanding reason to do it like a genocide or something on those lines. That comes in part from the proven fact that interventions makes things worse 90% of the time, so if you're making one, you better have a good reason.

The intervention in Yugoslavia had it's problems as well, but the big problem has been solved, and the region is better off now then it was before.


About Rwanda, if I'm not mistaken, at the time France sent a few troops there, but they did not intervene in any way, just protecting strategic interests.

The intervention in Yugoslavia had it's problems as well, but the big problem has been solved, and the region is better off now then it was before.

Absolutely not.

Slovenia now is just another border to block, and now instead of giving money to Serbia, it is given money from the EU, also, Slovenia had literally 10 days of war to get independence. Croatia, it had minimal fighting in its borders, so it was easy to rebuild, and instead of giving money to Serbia, now it gets money from the EU. And that's pretty much all the "good" that came out of it, the countries that weren't really intervened.

The Federation has mostly been rebuilt, but Sarajevo will not come back to its old honour for a very long while. Banja Luka was wrecked, and many Republican villages were literally wiped off the map, along with all industry in the Republic. And the Republic (along with third countries like Brchko) has not been funded by NATO rebuilding programmes, unlike the Federation, so is still a dirt poor country in the mountains, getting scanty rebuilding funds from Serbia and Russia, both poor-ish countries themselves.

Serbia is one of the poorest countries in Europe, it's better than the Republic, but not by much. Scanty Russian funds to rebuild it, that's all it got.

Voyvodina was in the same boat as Serbia in the war, despite many there who actually wanted independence like Kosova. But they were bombed just like everywhere else, and the independence movement lost faith, and saw Serbia as the good country, that they should stick with.

Montenegro was mainly left out of the bombings; the ports were blockaded, but that's it. It got independence in 2006 and stole the Euro, and now profits by being a relatively (in Europe) business-friendly country, with a 9% flat rate income tax. It's national airline was privatised a few years ago.

Kosova suffered the same wrecking as everything else did, through both Serbian and NATO.

Macedonia peacefully got independence, it left before the real war began. Now there are problems with Albanian-Sunni nationalism in Macedonia and the poor site now has stopped getting money, getting in trouble with Greece, hated by Bulgaria, it's grown terrible.

And in 1989, this country, Jugoslavija, was a great country to go on a vacation to, from the popular seaside Istria, to a Vardar vineyard.

Why should I be party leader?
With my policies, our country will be pulled out of our backwards stances and will turn out nation into the model of progress.

On the atrocious comments made by Paugers,
The Tea Party believes that Islam and its affiliates are a direct threat to America based. Perhaps not thr majority of Muslims would bomb a tower and kill thousands, but Islam has created these terrorists and therefore we have a job as Americans to be aware and stop all attempts at keeping our children safe. Therefore, banning Muslim entrance into the US until we can figure out what's going on makes sense and should be done.

Should immigration for Muslims be halted forever? I'd say absolutely. America was founded as a Christian nation first and foremost and I guarantee if thr founding fathers could have predicted that Muslims woulf be coming into America in the thousands, stealing precious, appreciated American jobs that they would have never allowed it. Therefore, yes the Tea Party believes Muslim immigration must be halted indefinitely.
For the first part, banning everyone to stop a minority of them from tearing apart the country is quite inefficient and blocks many honest Muslims from entering the country. Also, "we have a job as Americans to be aware and stop all attempts at keeping our children safe." If I read that correctly, we should stop all attempts at keeping our children safe. By that comment, we should let all Muslims in no questions asked and no terrorism screenings either (not what I advocate), since not doing so would be an attempt at keeping our children safe. Either that, or you just mispoke. Regardless, such comments are an atrocity which blemishes our nation.
On the second part, you make a dangerous assumption that Muslim extremism will happen forever. Muslim extremism is not a permanent threat if we deal with it correctly. Much like Nazi Germany and the USSR, they are threats for their oown time. What the status quo is for today should not be assumed to be the same forever.