[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Theodarzna]

I find it ironic someone who supports Bernie is arguing that nothing is entitled and everything should be earned.

Lol...... If I pay tax and agree to obey the contract law as stipulated I want compensation for that..... Alas, yes, if I am going to give supreme power to someone it comes with obligation and responsibility. Otherwise, why follow a nations laws or do anything for this country that gives nothing back to its people?

- - - Updated - - -

Let me guess though, in your view taxation is theft - but we need to support our military?

HEY THERE!!!!! THE ARMY IS LIKE MEGA-PATRIOTISM!!!!!!!!!!!

Never question our bloated and wasted military spending.... thats like necessary spending.

[Yvaelle]

She's entitled to nothing, but we're all entitled to free college and other things.

You're not entitled to things you pay taxes for, you're owed them.

Even if you are already out of school, you benefit from improving quality and access to education and healthcare - because you benefit from living in a top tier country.

At some point, helping those around you, helps you. You just need to expand your concept of what constitutes your 'tribe' beyond your family - to include your nation.

(Or, in my case, to our planet)

[Deleted]

Hillary wasn't paid $225000 to give a speech. There are no such words in the English language, let alone in her vocabulary, that could come close to being worth that much. She was paid $225000 by people who expect favors from her in return. She was paid $225000 so that they could own her.

Anyone who thinks the people giving her that much money don't expect something in return, something other than a few empty words, isn't living in this reality.

[Caolela]

He isn't a perfect candidate, my major problem honestly with Sanders is his age actually. I am looking over Jill Stein currently.

I have no prob with Sanders' age. After all, Clinton and Trump both are nearly 70, as was Reagan, etc.

My issue with Sanders is his support of the wars and huge military budgets, Obamacare, and the surveillance state among other things. In those he's as bad as Clinton or any right-winger.

[Theodarzna]

Alright, so when has he attacked her character?

Having the gal to challenge her was the attack I suppose.

[Matchles]

If somebody pays you a few billion dollars, then you are properly called an employee. Sanders mentions it, because its true.

I see the conflict now though - acknowledging reality is apparently 'an attack on Clinton'.

Sanders: "The sky is blue!"
Clinton: "How dare you besmirch my character!"

Ahh so if it is true, it can't be negative. So if Clinton were to release an ad saying, "Sanders supported murderous foreign regimes" then you wouldn't say that was an attack ad... Got it.

[Theodarzna]

You're not entitled to things you pay taxes for, you're owed them.

Even if you are already out of school, you benefit from improving quality and access to education and healthcare - because you benefit from living in a top tier country.

At some point, helping those around you, helps you. You just need to expand your concept of what constitutes your 'tribe' beyond your family - to include your nation.

(Or, in my case, to our planet)

I still might some day come around to that..... MAYBE.

[Lumicide]

Ahh so if it is true, it can't be negative. So if Clinton were to release an ad saying, "Sanders supported murderous foreign regimes" then you wouldn't say that was an attack ad... Got it.

Sanders' ads have been to the effect of "Goldman Sachs is corrupting our political system." I don't think he has ever mentioned her name in one.

[Vynestra]

Hillary wasn't paid $225000 to give a speech. There are no such words in the English language, let alone in her vocabulary, that could come close to being worth that much. She was paid $225000 by people who expect favors from her in return. She was paid $225000 so that they could own her.

Anyone who thinks the people giving her that much money don't expect something in return, something other than a few empty words, isn't living in this reality.

lol.

I can't think of an actual response to this, I'm literally just laughing. When she gave that speech -- She wasn't sure she'd run, she didn't have anymore elections up her sleeve, and there was a good chance that she might never hold another public office. What is there to own at that point?

Let's spend $225,000 to have a CHANCE to maybe get something out of it? Sure she didn't do it for nothing, but they don't own her, no way in hell.

When it comes down to it, she'll be strict even on them. Her example of Obama is good, he took more wall st. money than anyone and did the hardest wall st. crackdown in history. That's bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Sanders' ads have been to the effect of "Goldman Sachs is corrupting our political system." I don't think he has ever mentioned her name in one.

And then he ties her to them. The ads plant the seed, then he ties her to them.

He's trying to be sneaky and it's not sneaky. He's explicitly tying her to political corruption. Plain and simple.

[Theodarzna]

And then he ties her to them. The ads plant the seed, then he ties her to them.

He's trying to be sneaky and it's not sneaky. He's explicitly tying her to political corruption. Plain and simple.

What? Isn't Clinton proud of her friends?

[Yvaelle]

HEY THERE!!!!! THE ARMY IS LIKE MEGA-PATRIOTISM!!!!!!!!!!!

Never question our bloated and wasted military spending.... thats like necessary spending.

Right? We have to support our military, but taxing citizens to pay for our military? Theft!

What the American people need is a military that pays for itself - some kind of band of roving road-warriors who sustain themselves solely through their ceaseless conquest!

Also they should have gimps playing metal suspended off the front of their tanks:



What could possibly go wrong?

Ahh so if it is true, it can't be negative. So if Clinton were to release an ad saying, "Sanders supported murderous foreign regimes" then you wouldn't say that was an attack ad... Got it.

If it were true, it wouldn't be an attack ad - it would be a PSA.

I still might some day come around to that..... MAYBE.

Yess..... join the Internationalist DARKSIDE

(We have cookies!)

[Underverse]

And then he ties her to them. The ads plant the seed, then he ties her to them.

He's trying to be sneaky and it's not sneaky. He's explicitly tying her to political corruption. Plain and simple.

No actually, he's implicitly tying her to political corruption. By definition of the word. He has never explicitly stated that she is corrupt.

Even though everyone knows it's true.

[Matchles]

Sanders' ads have been to the effect of "Goldman Sachs is corrupting our political system." I don't think he has ever mentioned her name in one.

Right. He just mentions Clinton's connection to Goldman Sachs and her speaking fees in his stump speeches and then lets his ads complete the message of calling her corrupt.

[Underverse]

When it comes down to it, she'll be strict even on them. Her example of Obama is good, he took more wall st. money than anyone and did the hardest wall st. crackdown in history. That's bullshit.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you referring to when you say that Obama has executed the "hardest Wall Street crackdown in history"?

[Matchles]

If it were true, it wouldn't be an attack ad - it would be a PSA.

Alright well, consider it a public service.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._election.html

In 1980, Sanders served as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party, which was founded on the principles of Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Times, that party called for abolishing the military budget. It also called for “solidarity” with the revolutionary regimes in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba; this was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.

[Underverse]

Right. He just mentions Clinton's connection to Goldman Sachs and her speaking fees in his stump speeches and then lets his ads complete the message of calling her corrupt.

Which is an implication. Not an explication.

[Matchles]

Which is an implication. Not an explication.

Is there some unwritten rule that negative ads must explicitly name their opponent? So if he said, "my opponent is a corrupt politician who accepts bribes." That would be okay and not negative so long as O'Malley was still in the race so it wasn't clear who Sanders was talking about?

[Underverse]

Is there some unwritten rule that negative ads must explicitly name their opponent? So if he said, "my opponent is a corrupt politician who accepts bribes." That would be okay and not negative so long as O'Malley was still in the race so it wasn't clear who Sanders was talking about?

You don't have to explicitly name your opponent to explicitly attack your opponent. Your example is still an example of an explicit attack.

Saying that Clinton accepted money from banks, and banks usually don't like to throw away money, is an implication.

[Matchles]

You don't have to explicitly name your opponent to explicitly attack your opponent. Your example is still an example of an explicit attack.

Saying that Clinton accepted money from banks, and banks usually don't like to throw away money, is an implication.

Well they didn't say that banks don't like to throw away money. The ad says, "How does Wall Street get away with it? Millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Our economy works for Wall Street because it is rigged by Wall Street. And that is the problem, as long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people." It is quite explicit in saying politicians are bribed and his speeches directly link Clinton to it.

[Underverse]

Well they didn't say that banks don't like to throw away money. The ad says, "How does Wall Street get away with it? Millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Our economy works for Wall Street because it is rigged by Wall Street. And that is the problem, as long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can't build an economy that works for people." It is quite explicit in saying politicians are bribed and his speeches directly link Clinton to it.

1>Most politicians are bought by corporations.
2>Clinton accepts money from corporations.
3>Clinton is bought.

3 is an implication of the given premises. It's not necessarily true; but it's implied to be true by how it's framed.

An explicit statement is as follows:

1>Clinton is bought.

Do you see the difference?