[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Sooba]

Well, to be fair, it's kind of a moot point. Hillary will be the dem nominees. Even if Sanders is the popular choice, the delegates will go to her.

And round and round it goes. You aren't the first I've seen who seems to keep reverting to "He won't beat Clinton, He won't beat Trump, he's worse than Hillary on Trump" etc.

The first depends entirely on momentum and history proves that Supers will defect if he makes enough gains. If they don't, Trump beats Hillary in a landslide due to party rebellion. The second and third are simply wrong. He beats the Republicans by large margins, double digits in some cases. Which is better than Hillary is managing to do.

- - - Updated - - -

The Sanderistas right now. This is a much more accurate video.

/snip for length

You know what the Sanders campaign problem is? They haven't a clue about how to take one on the jaw. And they expect him to be President?

Here's some free advice. Sanders had a bad interview. So the fuck what. Live to fight another day. But you folks can't help yourselves. Sanders is flawless! It's OTHER people who are wrong. So you make it worse.

BernieBros are strategically inept.

Failure of logic combined with classic smear style, nice. Latter -> "Bernie bros". K bud. Former -> "Sanders supporters can't take one on the chin and therefore Sander's presidency will fail." Uh... no? Sanders does not rely on his voters for his capacity to write or pass legislation once he would be elected to office.

[Shadowferal]

Why is she saying she's against it? Because it's a political free lunch. She gets to feed some bullshit to a Democratic Base who knows better. TPP will pass in the lame duck session in December, and it'll be a crime with nobody's finger prints on it.

So some Clinton supporters are relying on the fact that she's a
That's funny as hell!

o...bad idea to be making predictions...

[Nadiru]

Failure of logic combined with classic smear style, nice. Latter -> "Bernie bros". K bud. Former -> "Sanders supporters can't take one on the chin and therefore Sander's presidency will fail." Uh... no? Sanders does not rely on his voters for his capacity to write or pass legislation once he would be elected to office.

Why are you banking on a President to pass legislation? A President who, as a Senator, passed basically no legislation whatsoever?

[Skroe]

So some Clinton supporters are relying on the fact that she's a
That's funny as hell!

o...bad idea to be making predictions...

Um.

I'll say it again. Are you fresh out of the womb? Lying is a useful and necessary survival tactic.

I certainly hope Bernie Sanders is an expert liar. The most powerful man or woman in the world shouldn't be a predictable, honest figure. Barack Obama being a mostly predictable, honest guy has severely compromised his ability to wield his power, against everyone from the US Congress to Vladmir Putin.

Are we electing a President or a Saint?

[infinitemeridian]

And round and round it goes. You aren't the first I've seen who seems to keep reverting to "He won't beat Clinton, He won't beat Trump, he's worse than Hillary on Trump" etc.

The first depends entirely on momentum and history proves that Supers will defect if he makes enough gains. If they don't, Trump beats Hillary in a landslide due to party rebellion. The second and third are simply wrong. He beats the Republicans by large margins, double digits in some cases. Which is better than Hillary is managing to do.

- - - Updated - - -



Failure of logic combined with classic smear style, nice. Latter -> "Bernie bros". K bud. Former -> "Sanders supporters can't take one on the chin and therefore Sander's presidency will fail." Uh... no? Sanders does not rely on his voters for his capacity to write or pass legislation once he would be elected to office.

Actually, he does:

"Now, to answer your question. You can't look at politics as a zero-sum game, and say, "Okay..." First of all, if I win, it will almost by definition mean that there will be a very large voter turnout. That's what I believe. If there is a very large voter turnout, I think the odds are pretty strong Democrats will regain control of the Senate, do better in the House. Can they win the House? I don't know. But they will do better.

But more importantly, if I win, it will mean that millions of people now want to be involved in the political process in a way that has not previously existed. Every item that I am talking about on my agenda is, I believe, supported by the majority of the people in this country. My major job is to mobilize the American people to demand that Congress listen to them and their needs rather than just the big money interests. That's how you make change take place. For example, as you know, I've talked about the need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. Do I believe we can deliver on that? Absolutely, because I believe that millions of young people and their parents understand that that's what we should be doing right now. And I think if Republicans or some Democrats want to vote against it, they will pay a very heavy political price."

And furthermore, moderation and compromise are values that are to be encouraged, not alienated. This is Sander's biggest failing. He is under the mistaken notion that not only a) His policies will work B) they will pass, but c) that people will support them/like them.

Imagine how little Obama would have gotten done had he fought tooth and nail to get everything he wanted passed during his presidency. He would have gotten very little done. Sometimes, you have to compromise in order to make change. Change is not an overnight thing, it is something that happens very slowly. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but Sanders supporters need to invoke some patience and temper their expectations. My way or the highway does not work in politics.

The most ironic thing is that Sanders himself has passed almost no legislation, but had to piggyback on other's works to get anything passed. He above all people should know how hard it is to get what you want without compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

So some Clinton supporters are relying on the fact that she's a
That's funny as hell!

o...bad idea to be making predictions...

It literally does not matter either way. Free trade is not the boogieman hiding in the closet that leftists/conservatives would have it be. Pretty much every economist will tell you that free trade is good for America.

[Shadowferal]

Um.

I'll say it again. Are you fresh out of the womb? Lying is a useful and necessary survival tactic.

It never used to be...

But how fucked up is your world when your only hope is not only in a proven liar, but that you hope she continues to be such? (It's no wonder that so many Sanders' supporters won't vote for her should she get the nom.)

It'd probably be even worse for your little world if she turns around and tries to keep her every word...

But the GOP would hate her for the label alone, and the Democrats would hate her for being that liar. So...she would be in Trump's position where both sides hate her. Welcome to four years of lame duck.

[Deleted]

Again the typical shit from the Hillary campaign. One side of the mouth is yelling "the Sanders campaign needs to tone it down!" while the other side is spewing "BernieBros" and "Sanderistas" and other direct insults aimed not at the candidate, but his supporters. And, obviously, completely tone deaf to what they themselves are saying.

Then again, when the candidate is a two-faced snake, is it surprising that's the type of rhetoric the supporters are relying on, as well? Not at all.

[Shadowferal]

It literally does not matter either way. Free trade is not the boogieman hiding in the closet that leftists/conservatives would have it be. Pretty much every economist will tell you that free trade is good for America.

Wrong.

O so fucking wrong it hurts to read..."Pretty much every economist will tell you" o more ghosts from xmas past...LOL

I have to go to work now. But we'll revisit that silly statement later.

[Sooba]

Why are you banking on a President to pass legislation? A President who, as a Senator, passed basically no legislation whatsoever?

Sanders was more successful than Hillary at both novel meaningful legislation and amendments to other's legislation while Senator. All she ever did was cosign work that someone else had done, or procedurals that were guaranteed to pass and had no meaning to actual policy. And he did so while not currently a part of either major party. So, come again. (This particular bit of useless assumption fits right in with saying she's more "electable". Clearly and provably wrong.)

[Deleted]

AHe beats the Republicans by large margins, double digits in some cases. Which is better than Hillary is managing to do.

Nobody in their right mind would ever elect a complete imbecile as Bernie Sanders. This country is collectively not that stupid.

Bernie Sanders is the epitome of everything that is wrong regarding liberals/progressives. He is the King of Victimization. Socialist like him should be run out of this country on a rail and thrown in the ocean.

He is a complete pussy for TWICE letting racist BLM agitators cower him into relinquishing his mic. He has NO courage or fortitude.

I can stomach Trump as President. Hell, I can even stomach Clinton (who I despise) as President. But Sanders? Not a fucking chance in hell. If that piece of shit ever were to actually be elected as the POTUS then I would DAMN sure move out of the USA. The worst of it citizens (liberals/progressives) would have free reign and they would absolutely destroy the USA.

[Sooba]

Nobody in their right mind would ever elect a complete imbecile as Bernie Sanders. This country is collectively not that stupid.

Bernie Sanders is the epitome of everything that is wrong regarding liberals/progressives. He is the King of Victimization. Socialist like him should be run out of this country on a rail and thrown in the ocean.

He is a complete pussy for TWICE letting racist BLM agitators cower him into relinquishing his mic. He has NO courage or fortitude.

I can stomach Trump as President. Hell, I can even stomach Clinton (who I despise) as President. But Sanders? Not a fucking chance in hell. If that piece of shit ever were to actually be elected as the POTUS then I would DAMN sure move out of the USA. The worst of it citizens (liberals/progressives) would have free reign and they would absolutely destroy the USA.

Oh look, baseless statements and ad-hominem! What a useful contribution. GTFO.

AS for the mic and BLM, we're talking about a guy who has taken every effort to give people of colour a voice. What he did was in line with his principles and not some fear of them. But keep making shit up.

[Skroe]

It never used to be...

It's always been. Barack Obama lied in the Primary, in the General Election, and as President. Bush? Well Bush lied on the biggest issues of his President. Clinton? One word: Triangulation. He baited and switch. Bush '41? "No New Taxes" among others. Shall I continue?

Lying is part of politics.

But how fucked up is your world when your only hope is not only in a proven liar, but that you hope she continues to be such? (It's no wonder that so many Sanders' supporters won't vote for her should she get the nom.)

It's realistic? You expect other people to be honest to you? People will fuck you over, to accomplish their agenda, and feel fine with it. Don't be naive. Other human beings don't owe you squat, least of all the truth, if it compromises them in anyway.

Be it the repair man, the co-worker, the boss, even the friend in some cases, everyone has an agenda. Maybe not malicious, but if human beings are good at one thing, it's making an exception for themselves and deciding that in this ONE case the ends do justify the means.

You go in expecting that, your feelings will be hurt a lot less if and when a lie dies emerge.

It'd probably be even worse for your little world if she turns around and tries to keep her every word...

This would be legitimatelly the first time Hillary Clinton, or Bill for that matter, has ever done that.

And you know what? If she does do that, big deal. There is still Congress to block her, just as they blocked Obama. And there is always another election a few years away. Keep in mind: I want the status quo, not change. I don't need dramatic action for her to be successful.

I mean I'm not sure if you've read the NASA threads, but it's a good microcosm of whats happened since 2009. Let me put it this way: due to Congress on a Bipartisan basis disagreeing with Obama's vision of the role of government and specific policies in a very fundamental way, the next President, like the current one, will have far less control of government agencies than George W Bush or Bill Clinton did did.

The "Imperial Presidency" is a shadow of what it was a decade ago.

But the GOP would hate her for the label alone, and the Democrats would hate her for being that liar. So...she would be in Trump's position where both sides hate her. Welcome to four years of lame duck.

Which I would be completely fine with. Again, I want the status quo. All she needs to do is sign the budgets that Congress has put together on a bipartisan basis.

I mean look at Obama's budgets the past half decade. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were far more successful getting their list of priorities passed and funded. In fact the only priority Bush advanced that didn't happen was Social Security privatization (thank god). But he mostly got his way.

Not so Obama. The passed budgets, for the most part, look nothing like what Obama requests. The budgets are more notable to bones being thrown TO the Administration.

Why this happened is natural: with the banning of earmarks and sharp cut in 'pork', congress has self interest in making every dollar count when it is dispersed to their home states and districts. There are also fundamental policy differences. This makes their budget priorities significantly different from the President.

Without the return of Earmarks and decade-ago levels of Pork, there is little reason to think Congress will give up holding the reigns so tight. That's why this entire election means less than you think. Clinton can want what she will want, sanders can want what he will want, Cruz and Trump as well. But chances are the FY2018 budget is going to look a lot like the FY2016 one, and the FY2017 one that is taking shape now. Congress, for better or for worse, does have a mostly consensus vision on what shall be funded, with the difference at the edges of the budget (things like planned parenthood), and not the center.

[infinitemeridian]

Again the typical shit from the Hillary campaign. One side of the mouth is yelling "the Sanders campaign needs to tone it down!" while the other side is spewing "BernieBros" and "Sanderistas" and other direct insults aimed not at the candidate, but his supporters. And, obviously, completely tone deaf to what they themselves are saying.

Then again, when the candidate is a two-faced snake, is it surprising that's the type of rhetoric the supporters are relying on, as well? Not at all.

Hmm more typical tinfoil hattery from the Sanders campaign, ignoring facts for feels, and using empty and emotional rhetoric.

We can go all day now can't we?

[satimy]

Ex Israeli ambassador just accused Bernie of blood libel.

[Sooba]

Hmm more typical tinfoil hattery from the Sanders campaign, ignoring facts for feels, and using empty and emotional rhetoric.

We can go all day now can't we?

Except his comment was accurate on hypocrisy. Yours is implying baseless paranoia when he showed clear hypocrisy. As for "facts for feels", that's just as empty an electioneering phrase as her touted "electability" and his supposed "ineffectiveness", when he's clearly been showing objectively to be more electable AND to have been more effective with meaningful legislation or amendments.

- - - Updated - - -

Ex Israeli ambassador just accused Bernie of blood libel.

Reminds me of Hillary's rage about her ties to Fossil fuel money. Angry at the truth. But hey, if his numbers are off I'm sure he'll talk about it. Unlike Hillary, who will scream at a woman and accuse her of lying about something that's true.

[Yvaelle]

Are we electing a President or a Saint?

That's a good idea Skroe thanks! After we put Bernie on the throne, we should get him a Sainthood to match

[Skroe]

Again the typical shit from the Hillary campaign. One side of the mouth is yelling "the Sanders campaign needs to tone it down!" while the other side is spewing "BernieBros" and "Sanderistas" and other direct insults aimed not at the candidate, but his supporters. And, obviously, completely tone deaf to what they themselves are saying.

Then again, when the candidate is a two-faced snake, is it surprising that's the type of rhetoric the supporters are relying on, as well? Not at all.

Do we need to spell it out for you?

I don't like Sanders supporters. I don't respect them. I detest their world view and what htey want for this country. And I'm looking forward to them seeing their ambitions go up in smoke. I don't want them to just lose. I want them to watch and truly feel the loss. Their world view is so out of sync with the American moderate mainstream - "political revolution"... really? - that they deserved to be slapped down, and hard.

And as we've said before - and you, Sydänyö, perhaps because you're a foreigner, either don't understand or are an expert of ignoring, is that Hillary doesn't need Sanders supporters in most places. It doesn't matter if she wins by 10% or 18% in Massachusetts.

Pennsylvannia
Virgina
North Caorlina
Ohio
Flordia
Colorado
New Hampshire

Pick some some subset of those. Depending on the subset - no more than 2 to 4 in any case - Hillary becomes President just by winning all the deep blue states plus 2 to 4 of those.

So Sanders supporters in California can stay home. Their participation is not required. All she has to do, is become the more liked figure compared to Trump or Cruz in two or three states, let's say Pennsylviania, Virigina and Florida (for arguments sake), and she will be President.

You win the presidency with the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

Here, feel free to play with it:
http://www.270towin.com/


Here is the basic "deep blue state model" : http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNd76. Use this as the basis for all the ways Hillary can win.

Let's add Pennsylvannia, Ohio and Florida: http://www.270towin.com/maps/qjP72
Let's add Pennsulvania, Virgina and Ohio: http://www.270towin.com/maps/adBgl
Let's add Pennslvania, North Carolina and Florida: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5Brkb
Let's add Florida, Ohio and Virgina: http://www.270towin.com/maps/qKmrZ

There are just so many routes. And you'll note, none of them require Hillary to be popular with BernieBros Oregon.

And for the record, here is 2012:


Hillary can manage to lose more than half the swing states Obama won, and still manage to win big.

Welcome to American electoral politics 101. It takes 270 to win, and the popular vote is a nice statistic.

[Sooba]

Do we need to spell it out for you?

I don't like Sanders supporters. I don't respect them. I detest their world view and what htey want for this country. And I'm looking forward to them seeing their ambitions go up in smoke. I don't want them to just lose. I want them to watch and truly feel the loss. Their world view is so out of sync with the American moderate mainstream - "political revolution"... really? - that they deserved to be slapped down, and hard.

But Bernie's campaign needs to "change it's tone" and they're the ones operating on "feels". K.

Thanks for showing your true colours.

[satimy]

Except his comment was accurate on hypocrisy. Yours is implying baseless paranoia when he showed clear hypocrisy. As for "facts for feels", that's just as empty an electioneering phrase as her touted "electability" and his supposed "ineffectiveness", when he's clearly been showing objectively to be more electable AND to have been more effective with meaningful legislation or amendments.

- - - Updated - - -



Reminds me of Hillary's rage about her ties to Fossil fuel money. Angry at the truth. But hey, if his numbers are off I'm sure he'll talk about it. Unlike Hillary, who will scream at a woman and accuse her of lying about something that's true.

Isn't blood libel when you talk about Jews kidnapping Christian children and baking them into Mazza bread? Is it really libel to say Israel has killed innocent civilians?

[infinitemeridian]

Except his comment was accurate on hypocrisy. Yours is implying baseless paranoia when he showed clear hypocrisy. As for "facts for feels", that's just as empty an electioneering phrase as her touted "electability" and his supposed "ineffectiveness", when he's clearly been showing objectively to be more electable AND to have been more effective with meaningful legislation or amendments.

- - - Updated - - -



Reminds me of Hillary's rage about her ties to Fossil fuel money. Angry at the truth. But hey, if his numbers are off I'm sure he'll talk about it. Unlike Hillary, who will scream at a woman and accuse her of lying about something that's true.

The truth that people who work in the industry, rather than the industry itself, give her money? That that money in and of itself constitutes a miniscule fraction of her total donations?

What Sanders supporters don't seem to understand, is that people disagree with them. But man, they must all be hoodwinked by the corporate shills! How could anybody disagree with Sanders? Don't they GET IT?