He is relaying valid and documented historical facts. They are not pleasant historical facts though. The power center that caused the mess in Indochina and who held the interests that Henry Kissinger butchered millions for are still around today. Speaking truth to power is a dangerous game to get involved in. While Senator Sanders has been playing the game for a long time, it is only now that his stock has become known to the electorate on a wide scale. Invoking and fanning populism is a very threatening adversary to the small percentage of people who hold an inordinate amount of power relative to the population as a whole. They would prefer to keep the status quo, and they are quite resistantly combative to change. And the fact that we're already seeing difficulties in the electoral process is unsettling enough by itself. So while I prefer the truth, as Senator Sanders laid out, I nevertheless recognize the burden of that truth when uttered in such a capacity; it is absolutely necessary but it is at the same time incredibly dangerous. The next few months, I think, shall prove very interesting.

Well said. The senator should be careful.

Indeed. He has recently gotten Secret Service protection. Interestingly enough, his codename is already known and it is known as 'Intrepid'. And it is worth point out that there have been several news reports lately about U.S. agents, be it Secret Service, D.H.S. or F.B.I. who have had their weapons and identifications stolen.

Indeed. He has recently gotten Secret Service protection.

Worked for JFK!

It may not be the same secret service in service today

JFK was a known loose cannon. If they know someone is predictable they can work around him. This means Sanders is safe for now. At least from the establishment spooks if not the Jesuits or the Freemasons (catholic/protestant spies)

Jesuits or the Freemasons (catholic/protestant spies)

Oh, give me a fucking break.

Why are people siding with you? Are they really as ignorant as you are on this subject? I mean really. This is controlled opposition stuff. Listen to this and educate yourself. Brussell was a researcher who used mainstream sources. It's all right there in your face, you just don't see it. This will help:

• Mae Brussell - Opus Dei, Knights Of Malta, Vatican Death Squads.
• Mae Brussell -Knights of Malta- Part 1
• Mae Brussell. -Knights of Malta- Part 2

(knights of malta are a jesuit honorary position)

edit: dont' say you weren't informed. It's your choice to downvote me for telling you the truth and being willfully opposed to learning about something you don't want to believe. But that choice doesnt' help you in the long run.

Is there a written version of all that? I'm not going to watch three hours of video to accomplish 5 minutes of reading.

I went to a Jesuit secondary school. I must have missed the day where I was sworn into all the secret societies and given my assassination orders.

i know i mean who runs secret service, Jesuits and freemasons? no.

a hint as to runs them is their 2 jobs is to investigate financial crimes and protect the president

I don't know about the secret service. But I suspect they are guided by the same invisible hands that control the CIA. It's knights of malta. This is easily shown. Just because someone gets upvotes for saying "that's ridiculous" doesn't mean they are right.

no, answer is fed reserve

No its the penguin mafia.. can you guys hear yourselves?

No. It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He did it with his noodly appendage!

If you could have any one food for the rest of your life, what would it be and why is it spaghetti?

Easily shown? Proof please :)

Sanders has been consistent in his message for decades which has essentially been the message of the people, his only constituents. He may be the most predictable candidate in 2016. To "axe" him could risk not-so-peaceful revolution. Still, dissing Kissinger may not have been wise.

You should not have that job if you allow your badge and gun to be stolen. Period. You're doing something wrong.

I think it's just an entertainment to TPTB. Hillary Cunton will still get elected, no matter what.

Gotta love superdelegates with their super powers.

You really believe they have the power to elect officials? What world do you live in? Did you just get out of high school or something?

Not a single individual in this thread made any such insinuation as the one you are accusing me of making. Officials indeed are not even elected in the primaries. Do "democratic" superdelegates have the power to cause the party to nominate an unpopular candidate? You bet they do:

https://www.google.com/search?q=presidential+primaries

Clarity (in case you dropped out of high school or something):

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/will-hillarys-democratic-establishment-superdelegates-back-bernie-now/

Tl;dr:

Superdelegates are party insiders who don't have to vote in line with the people. Rather they vote "independently" and as Secretary Clinton is the establishment candidate, she has already secured 362 of their votes. This means that even though Senator Sanders lost Iowa by less than 1/4% and won by a landslide in NH, he is still FAR behind Secretary Clinton in total delegates.

So, you really think that the superdelegates will ram Shillary down our throats despite Sanders' enormous popularity? If Sanders gains the vote of the people, then the uberdelegates will follow suit. Otherwise you can expect some massive protests and political suicide for those forcing Shillary onto us...

Probably not as such a thing has yet to occur. 2008 is prime example of superdelegates eventually coming to their senses (Hillary versus Obama). However it is certainly a possibility and in the case of a swing vote, it could spell trouble for democracy.

why do you think we have an electoral college and super delegates? to allow the appearance of democracy but to allow the rich to have final say if the rabble pick the wrong choice.

Excellent and funny tl;dr on the DNC primary process:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/superdelegates-retained-b_n_669171.html

Well said. I stood out of my seat when he brought up looking in to the DoD. No one even talks about that. I hope that he won some more votes last night. I know there is a large anti-war, anti-intervention group in this country and I hope they heard that message.

No doubt. Having served myself, I'd like to see a Commander in Chief that uses his security services wisely. After all, we're not G.I. Joes to be moved about willy nilly. And while we ought to retain our military primacy, an audit is badly needed. I think Senator Sanders would be the kind of Commander in Chief who would look at what big business charges government to build it the hardware and software our nation needs to defend it properly with and renegotiate terms so that the government and therefore taxpayer are not on the hook for outrageously inflated contracts.

I haven't heard him go after the Federal Reserve yet so I think he might be safe.

Here is an Op-Ed by him going after Fed reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-to-rein-in-wall-street-fix-the-fed.html

Just a snippet, "we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions."

By "go after the Federal Reserve" I meant more along the lines of a Ron Paul "end the Fed" type position.

Senator Sanders may or may not have mentioned the Fed by name, but his subject material if acted upon would inevitably lead to the Fed. I think he would be mesmerized to learn of the extent of the corruption and the many hidden dirty facts. I suspect that he would pursue reform. We know what that situation means.

Well put although I have a strong suspicion that he's merely controlled opposition else he's not and I fear for his well being.

I don't get that vibe from Senator Sanders. IMO, he is one of the least co-opted and is more like us, a genuine person who actually exhibits empathy and caring for his fellow citizen.

What gives you that impression though? Is there something you can link to so I can see what you're seeing?

Probably because he's Jewish.

Just paranoid I suppose

He's at that age where he can go for broke. At least listening to him is a refreshing change from the slogans of the remaining candidates. He wasn't going to get elected anyway. He should speak his mind.

"He ain't gonna get elected anyway"

Says you, the kind of people who sit home all day and think they know better... Pretty disgusting when someone sticks out their neck and actually offers REAL change and (dare I say) hope to the masses, while you wallow around here.

Who are you quoting?

You're mistaking my pragmatism with ignorance. I would like to see him get elected. He won't get elected. Your ignorance is priceless and ironic.

Care to justify your statement that he wont get elected? I mean really, he just won in NH. Reality check, anyone?

I think you're missing the point here. It's not that he won't get elected due to him not having enough votes or whatnot. That's not the issue. It's that, at least IMO anyway, TPTB are going to pick whomever they want to win. The next POTUS has already been chosen. Voting is just for show now. The vote count will be rigged of course, and there will be no way for any of us "peasant's" to prove such...not that MSM would listen anyway.

They'll be busy reporting the same old tired bullshit about "hope and change", or whatever the new hook is ...Just a different face with a new name,but the game is still the same one they've been playing for centuries.

Get a clue man, and Wake up already. You seriously think that voting changes anything? IF that were the case, and our votes genuinely counted, it would've been outlawed already,Made illegal and new laws written into the books, under the guise of "Protecting american citizens and/or American interests" from "Terrorism" or some other bullshit Propaganda.

Because after all, The government knows whats best for you, and they have your best interests at heart, and are simply here to protect you from you. And to make sure we all remain " citizens of a free world."

I don't have to. American politics are transparent and obvious. There will be a loophole or a heart attack or a counting error by some software company owned by some Arab. He won't be your president.

http://movie-sounds.org/mystery-movie-sound-clips/sound-clips-from-devil-s-advocate-1997/don-t-be-such-a-fucking-chump-stop-deluding-yourself

I think you have a pretty reasonable opinion.

Of course. But by doing so he is exhibiting bravery in the face of danger. All I'm saying is that while what he says is necessary, the possibility of us drawing comparisons to RFK or JFK on a later date is much higher than a candidate that does not provoke the established status quo of things.

Unfortunately, Sanders doesn't have the youth of JFK. He won't be in it for the long haul (at least as far as I can foresee) and he doesn't have the charisma say a propagandized, sensationalized, covered first-female-president does. Even if she is an old bitter bitch and does represent what Sanders looks like which is the status quo of old white men.

I like what he has to say but then again I actually read and question things.

Most of America is either caught up in the hipster Socialist revolution and have their heads up their ass swimming in the decay that is their offensive smelling bullshit, or they are imported labour given a voting card by the same government enabling them to destroy national unity, or they are uneducated morons captivated by slogans and or forced to vote along party lines because the alternative is to join people who despise them.

Even if electing a good leader was possible, which it isn't in parliamentary government, Americans couldn't do it because of the divide.

I still believe the US should be split up into South-Southwest and Northeast but that won't happen because 1) the divide is important to American war and the confusion they need to get things passed and 2) the chaos keeps the population busy on trivial matters that could be solved with a returning of land to the people by region.

Sanders is the last of a dying breed. You won't see many more like him. And he won't be president.

Probably yeah, but not IMO for lack of charisma. He has Lewis Black charisma with a funky New England accent. And his message is clear: he gives a damn about the people. Sadly, that is why his chances of actually becoming POTUS are far less likely.

I'm not going to hold my breath. I believe that the only way for America to move forward is to spill a little blood. Right now, the people are letting the corporate elite and the politicians know that they will take it up the ass as long as things don't get bad too quickly but gradually. If you want to send the lobbyists a message, kill a bunch of them and their puppets in office. If the government won't uphold the law and prosecute treason, and won't take responsibility, it has to be forced by outside bodies. They aren't going to self-regulate.

I know right now there has been a backlash against talk of revolution, so I'll wait for after Sanders loses and then mention it again.

While things are bad and needed reform is not occurring, bloodshed would undoubtedly be a terrible disaster. The government would respond with the hammer just as other countries have experienced the world over since civilized society was created, including America itself. The federal government would win the 2nd civil war too. Stalinist-like in-your-face totalitarianism is behind that door. A mass nonviolent protest movement is much more preferable to the start of a bloody lost cause. We demand change in peace until we can't anymore. In other words, we don't start the fight.

A terrible disaster is tens of trillions of tax dollars going missing and not helping the people but rather being secretly spent on drugs and war and death across the planet, used to train terrorists and buy governments and cause death.

People are dying every day in America and overseas because of the US government and their corporate masters. So spilling a little more to finally solve the problem doesn't bother me.

I find it sickening that the population can sit by and watch as the US murders children from the sky and does nothing to help the hundreds of thousands of people at home who could use the DOD's money more than the pentagon. The spending in the US needs to be contained, the government needs to be dismantled, the order of things needs to be reset. That can't happen with a vote.

If anything has been clear it is that I agree that things are bad, are not being adequately addressed and that something needs to be done about it. The AP ran an article today talking about the Oregon standoff - in the headline it states that people agreed with the cause of the standoff but disagreed with the tactics. Most everyone should be on-board with that when it comes to violent confrontation with our government. Besides the devastation it would sow, the people would not win that fight. I don't know about you, but I would prefer that American towns and cities don't get bombarded by B-52's, F-16's and drones or be occupied by ground troops. A bloody encounter with the government is a surefire way for that to occur. We ought to avoid that as much as possible.

If American towns get bombed by their own government, it would only prove my point.

At that point, certainly, but my point was to avoid that situation while sitting accomplishing much needed reform that millions desperately need.

Loses*

Why do so many people not know how to spell this word?

Maybe due to the fact that I crushed my finger and I sometimes hold buttons too long and thus end up with redundant letters. Thanks for taking the time. I fixed it. Now fix your life.

Lol. Coming up with a lame excuse for a spelling mistake? Wow, some people.

http://i.imgur.com/zzYcHxU.jpg

You going to throw up?

wrap that up idiot.

You didn't even zoom in, pussy.

Right. Because people vote against their own interests all the time. The worst system justifiers are poor people.

Like non-rich people voting Republican, yeah. Unfortunately for America, there are a lot of stupid and ignorant Americans. That is by design just as are elections, more so now than ever because of Citizens United.

He's just as much a marginalized minority as Hillary, since he'd be the first Jewish president. If Feminists were legit and not total frauds, they'd recognize that fact, since they claim to be protective of all civil rights marginalized people such as gays, blacks, trans, fems, aliens, other...

Bernie has balls. more power to him

He may have gone too far. He said that live on national TV when a great many people were watching. Imagine how many people have never heard of Kissinger or how many have never bothered to look him up. Google must have lit up like a supernova.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F03k_f&geo=US&date=now%207-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B8

rapedeadkids username has me thinking you're trying to make Bernie look bad

You're probably right. u/rapedeadkids should abstain from any pro Bernie threads if she does not want to cause harm. You know, because usernames on Internet forums can impact elections.

[removed]

Right again! You know, because sarcasm is what fury looks like on teh interwebs.

yep also playing dumb and being passive aggressive

Riiiiiight...

solid response

Agreed

Mate, you're on a warning for rule 10 already, turn it down eh?

Aye, mate.

I hope you didn't think I meant you, I didn't.

Ah thanks for clarifying. I viewed the thread tree incorrectly. After seeing your warning I was afraid I used a real username instead of a fictitious one as I meant to in my sarcastic response.

How's moderating this sub going? Seems like a LOT of work. Thanks, btw.

No probs, the other user was going too far. You have no warnings at all so no complaints here. You wouldn't believe how much fun it is fending off endless complaints and mediating ridiculous arguments hehe.

stfu

no u

good one

That's amazing. I assumed he was a house hold name. God people are stupid.

At least people bothered to look him up so they knew who was being talked about. Just because you don't know who he is doesn't mean your stupid. I don't really anything about him. I try to avoid politics because it tends to make me very frustrated.

Yep. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is forever.

If people were educated politically they wouldn't be taking part in the democrat vs. Republican contest tl reward the most loyal puppet of the oligarchy.

If people were educated politically, they'd understand the merit of voting for who they believe is suitable as a symbolic gesture, even if they lose or think they will lose or know they will lose. Why?

Because first of all, it's what has integrity. That path has a heart. Something too many americans lack: integrity and heart.

Secondly, because it sends a message.

Thirdly, so that when we finally overturn the corrupt order, we know who to drill up the ass with a spire in the public square and who not to. And who we want leading our country thereafter.

Finally, it's very shill like (i'm not calling you a shill but I'm saying it's a shill like tendency) to come in here and say, "oh they are all the same. Why vote? It doesn't do anything. You can't win." It's trying to push some kind of apathy, shutdown rhetoric. We're not buying it dude. We're post-apathy here on /r/conspiracy. Many of us are excited for the future, because it's either Bernie (or Trump/other non-Hillary) or the whole system gets burned to the ground and many people die or starve or worse. Do you want the latter? No? Then get off your ass and vote. Otherwise, you're unwittingly helping THEM by inducing 'learned apathy' and 'american political stockholm syndrome' (google corbett stockholm syndrome).

Because if they steal the vote, it will be VERY obvious they did...if like 75% of people voted for bernie but Hillary wins electoral votes...then you know. And if she gets Supreme Courted into presidence I can assure you she will be dead within a week. Not from me of course, I have no gun or training and I dont' believe in killing people. I just see the writign on the wall, my ear is to the ground and I can hear what's coming from afar.

This is all under the false assumption that the elections haven't been completely broken and rigged so that only puppets of the oligarchy can get elected.

I MADE NO SUCH ASSUMPTION. In fact, the opposite is true. Reread. I said symbolic gesture, even if you know you will lose (ie: because its rigged)

Which is of course the case. The election is still months away and all the conversation is about the leading 2 duopoly candidates on either side. This is why its fashionable for candidates like Fiorina to drop out, they know that once you get uninvited from the media parties, you are effectively hemmoraging money.

That is not a democracy.

If people were educated politically, they'd understand the merit of voting for who they believe is suitable as a symbolic gesture, even if they lose or think they will lose or know they will lose. Why?

My political education has brought me to the conclusion that no one is suited to rule anyone.

Because first of all, it's what has integrity. That path has a heart. Something too many americans lack: integrity and heart.

"I believe in a thing, if at least 51% of the population agrees with me I advocate using deadly force to ensure their compliance" damn dude that's some integrity

Secondly, because it sends a message.

The message "I advocate harming people to enforce my beliefs"

Thirdly, so that when we finally overturn the corrupt order, we know who to drill up the ass with a spire in the public square and who not to. And who we want leading our country thereafter.

There you go advocating violence again

---

Finally, it's very shill like (i'm not calling you a shill but I'm saying it's a shill like tendency) to come in here and say, "oh they are all the same. Why vote? It doesn't do anything. You can't win." It's trying to push some kind of apathy, shutdown rhetoric. We're not buying it dude. We're post-apathy here on /r/conspiracy. Many of us are excited for the future, because it's either Bernie (or Trump/other non-Hillary) or the whole system gets burned to the ground and many people die or starve or worse. Do you want the latter? No? Then get off your ass and vote. Otherwise, you're unwittingly helping THEM by inducing 'learned apathy' and 'american political stockholm syndrome' (google corbett stockholm syndrome).

This implies that the person you're talking to shares your belief in democracy as non oppressive. It's funny how you bring up Stockholm syndrome while advocating working within the confines of a system you've been victimized by your entire life.

Because if they steal the vote, it will be VERY obvious they did...if like 75% of people voted for bernie but Hillary wins electoral votes...then you know. And if she gets Supreme Courted into presidence I can assure you she will be dead within a week.

So they'll rig an election but they won't alter the numbers to make the tax cattle feel like they weren't cheated, right.

Not from me of course, I have no gun or training and I dont' believe in killing people. I just see the writign on the wall, my ear is to the ground and I can hear what's coming from afar.

This is the most important part of your whole post. You don't believe in killing people but you advocate for a government which only exists because we are all aware it monopolizes the use of deadly force. What writing are you reading? The shit I'm reading says you should look into a gun, because if you want change is not going to come from electing a dude who wants the government in charge of more parts of your life.

Yea Bernie sanders puppet of the oligarchy.........lol

When Senator Sanders asked Fed chair Yellen if US is an oligarchy:

http://youtu.be/B2Nk25C6mes

A career politician that advocates for massive increases in government power/interventionism. Totally safe.

I mean, you're probably right but its not really indicative of people's knowledge of him. I've known for years of what Kissinger has done but I cant remember ever googling his name.

It was alright for Mark Zuckerberg to use Kissinger as an example of someone fighting for "peaceful relations" in the world, so I think it's quite alright for Bernie to spill some truth.

There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man ‘discovered’ through an election.

[deleted]

It may not have been the wisest thing to do.

Video:

https://goo.gl/mX42jM

Wow! Amazing.

Fucking powerful!

I wonder what Clinton was crossing out on her paper...

Maybe along the lines that: "Kissenger was a great man, and i'm proud to say i'm a friend of Henry!"

What do you think it was?

I really don't know, but I find it interesting that Clinton's eyebrows raise after his first sentence and subsequent applause. Like its directly linked to what he said.
Perhaps her paper looked like this;

Say Kissinger is a cool guy

Plot twist, it actually looks like it could have been what I said.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta

Noice.

Kissinger must not wanted to be friends with bernie...

hillary looks stunned and frozen - like a deer in the headlights.

aaaahbaaaaaaaaaaahwaaaaaaaa??!?!

(kissinger being a MAJOR clinton ally, of course)

Uh oh, he said the K word. Love it, the dude isnt scared to drop the knowledge.

Fantastic moment.

Is there anywhere to see the full stream of the debate?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=o56pLqPYcEo

It was beautiful.

Its getting to the point where I don't see him coming out of this election alive.

wow.....

Excellent documentary of Henry Kissinger on YouTube Here

No prob =) spread the love and knowledge

Aye aye

[deleted]

When linking at Facebook, Twitter, etc. try a free link shortener instead of a long URL. Here is the same link using goo.gl -

https://goo.gl/mX42jM

He's with Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Interesting. Do you say this as in "philosophically aligned" or do you have an actual link between the two?

Its meant to imply there are two factions of foreign policy advisers.

Correct, and the ignorance in this thread of not knowing this, is amazing. Democrats align with the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and Brzezinski. While the neo-Cons, Kissinger. Both people are pieces of shit, but calling out the other team's guy is not really anything "too shocking".

When you have seeing eyes it's plain to see.

Go on...

Disagree but here's a reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Bernie Sanders is evidence that America will never be taken seriously on the world stage. That is, until, they elect a leader like Vladimir Zhirinovsky who would annex parts of Central America, South America, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and NZ.

Annex New Zealand? Might as well annex the fuckin moon. Your guy is obviously retarded.

The United States wanted to invade New Zealand in 1908

Is this an argument against it being a retarded idea? Australia I get, New Zealand is just stupid. Might as well invade Norfolk Island.

New Zealand is Australia's Canada.

No. Papua New Guinea is Australia's Canada.

What? no. Papua New Guinea is poor and not white. New Zealand is majority white and very developed. They are both part of the British Commonwealth. Their accents are almost identical, save for a few words (fush en chups). Their flags are almost identical. There have been several attempts to make New Zealand part of Australia

Oh, I thought you were actually trying to be clever and say that invading New Zealand would make an invasion of Australia easier. Instead it's just some random "let's invade a pointless country for no reason" sort of thing. OK, that's cool I guess. Historically, and even now, any country contemplating an invasion of Australia would definitely invade PNG. New Zealand is too far away, and has zero assets worth taking by force. Invading them because they kind of appear similar to Australians seems about as retarded as it's possible to get. My point about Norfolk Island stands. Oh, and just fyi, New Zealanders have a pretty long history of punching above their weight militarily, and I reckon would fuck the US war machine for WAY more than it was worth, with 100% help from their brothers over the Tasman sea I might add.

The US is very easily able to get to New Zealand. With regards to its military might, the United States has nuclear weapons and New Zealand doesn't. Nuclear deterrence only works when both nations have nuclear weapons. You do the math.

Risk to reward ratio. You do the math.

There is no risk.

Tell that to the thousands of soldiers that would certainly die.

Tasmania is Australia's...uhm...place to put less desirables?

Tasmania just breeds undesirables all on it's own now.

Do hobbits even pay taxes?

How much can you tax someone who lives in a hole in the ground? Their only valuable they threw into a volcano ffs.

To what? Keep an eye on the Aussies?

The great seafood shortage of '07.

Too bad it's 2016 now lol.

Interesting. Do you say this as in "philosophically aligned" or do you have an actual link between the two?

Go on...

Disagree but here's a reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Is this an argument against it being a retarded idea? Australia I get, New Zealand is just stupid. Might as well invade Norfolk Island.

To what? Keep an eye on the Aussies?

Do hobbits even pay taxes?

Of course. But by doing so he is exhibiting bravery in the face of danger. All I'm saying is that while what he says is necessary, the possibility of us drawing comparisons to RFK or JFK on a later date is much higher than a candidate that does not provoke the established status quo of things.

"He ain't gonna get elected anyway"

Says you, the kind of people who sit home all day and think they know better... Pretty disgusting when someone sticks out their neck and actually offers REAL change and (dare I say) hope to the masses, while you wallow around here.

Probably yeah, but not IMO for lack of charisma. He has Lewis Black charisma with a funky New England accent. And his message is clear: he gives a damn about the people. Sadly, that is why his chances of actually becoming POTUS are far less likely.

He's just as much a marginalized minority as Hillary, since he'd be the first Jewish president. If Feminists were legit and not total frauds, they'd recognize that fact, since they claim to be protective of all civil rights marginalized people such as gays, blacks, trans, fems, aliens, other...

No doubt. Having served myself, I'd like to see a Commander in Chief that uses his security services wisely. After all, we're not G.I. Joes to be moved about willy nilly. And while we ought to retain our military primacy, an audit is badly needed. I think Senator Sanders would be the kind of Commander in Chief who would look at what big business charges government to build it the hardware and software our nation needs to defend it properly with and renegotiate terms so that the government and therefore taxpayer are not on the hook for outrageously inflated contracts.

Too bad it's 2016 now lol.