[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Rukh]

Soooo Bernie has basically lost? I saw on the news he switched to trying to make Hilary adopt some of his policies. Guess he's not going for the win..

That's always been his ambition, really.

[Gray_Matter]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/24/po...016/index.html

When the Koch brothers are viewing you as a being a suitable president, true liberals and progressives might have very good reason to be worried. Like I said before; she doesn't need to be influenced by money. She already is what they want.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that he said it to try and hurt Clinton. If you look at the interview, though, the way he said it was more like "If she acted differently to everything that she has said in this primary so far then I might just have to support her".

[Caolela]

You want to know why Clinton supporters take on the Bernie supporters, it's because of these continuous jabs. Almost everything that is said is either a subtle or direct dig at something about Clinton. Bernie doesn't need to attack Clinton because his supporters are doing it for him. You have no proof to back up that statement yet you make it anyway.

Apparently you were born yesterday, or you refuse to look at the record. Don't know how else I can help you.

[Gray_Matter]

Soooo Bernie has basically lost? I saw on the news he switched to trying to make Hilary adopt some of his policies. Guess he's not going for the win..

If he keeps on with his attacks and doesn't reign in his surrogates then he is unlikely to get much of an ear from Clinton. He needs to adopt a more conciliatory tone otherwise he will end up hurting her chances.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently you were born yesterday, or you refuse to look at the record. Don't know how else I can help you.

I have seen her record. I could just as easily say that Bernie is in the pockets of the Gun lobbyists. He was anti them and switched when he lost the election. They then supported him in winning the subsequent election by attacking his opponent. There is far more of a link there then the insinuation that she is bought by Wall Street because it's just that, an insinuation.

If there was a link then Bernie would have brought it up at the debate.

[Caolela]

There is far more of a link there then the insinuation that she is bought by Wall Street because it's just that, an insinuation.

I don't know where you get your info from, but anyone who posits that about the Clintons is severely mistaken or uninformed. It isn't hard to find.

Willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, take your pick.

[Matchles]

Just wondering. What are the real problems you reffered to?

I'd start with entitlement and tax reform with respect to corporations. Minimum wage only partially addresses this. If someone is in the full time employ of a company, large or small, that company should pay them enough and provide enough benefits to guarantee their employees don't qualify for government assistance. Anything less is letting those companies mooch off the taxpayer to pad their profits.

Next I'd probably say the systemic inequality in the justice system and education system. There is a lot more to it than raising the minimum wage to $15 and taxing the rich more. Sanders free college is a non-starter. It'll just turn a bachelor's degree into the new high school diploma. I'm for equal access, but those that can't cut it in college do not belong. I prefer Clinton's focus on learning trades through a trade school or community college in addition to curbing costs at universities.

Another problem would be ensuring a liberal Supreme Court that would protect all of the progressive advances made over the last generation. Sanders steps in it here too by announcing he'd require any candidate pledge to overturn Citizen's United during the nomination process. Not only would that set the disturbing precedent of asking justices to announce their decisions prior to hearing a case, it would make any of his nominees unable to be confirmed in the current Senate (or even a narrowly held Democratic Senate.)

I have plenty of other small issues with Sanders, his support for taxpayers covering pseudo-scientific alternative medicines. I don't like his inability to work with anyone that doesn't agree with him on 100% of the issues. I don't like how he labels anyone who disagrees with him as corrupt. He would be completely ineffective as a president because he is incapable of compromise, even with his own party. Finally, Sanders isn't even well informed in his own wheelhouse. Clinton was asked the same question about breaking up the banks that Sanders was and knew the exact sections that could be used in Dodd-Frank. She just has a much better grasp of the issues and how to address them than he does.

[Gray_Matter]

I don't know where you get your info from, but anyone who posits that about the Clintons is severely mistaken or uninformed. It isn't hard to find.

Willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, take your pick.

No, there is no proof of anything because if there was then she would be in serious trouble and indicted.

Here is an example from ECOS101. There is a direct relationship between the amount of ice cream eaten and the suicide rate. From that, one can surmise that ice cream causes suicide. It sounds pretty obvious but it's not true. In reality, the suicide rate is linked to temperature as is the ice cream consumption rate. More people commit suicide in summer and more ice cream is eaten in summer.

The situation is similar to what happens with Clinton. People are more than likely giving her money because her policies suit them better than Bernie's policies. She doesn't have to change her stance at all. She is not bowing down to them or being bought by them. She is sticking to her policies. You are welcome to disagree with her policies. That's fine but to suggest that she is bought because people are donating to her is the same as saying that Bernie only decided to support free education and free healthcare because people donated to him and wanted that. You are drawing a correlation that isn't there and then saying it's obvious.

What you should be doing is attacking her policy on banking, healthcare or something else. That would make sense.

[Blueobelisk]

If he keeps on with his attacks and doesn't reign in his surrogates then he is unlikely to get much of an ear from Clinton. He needs to adopt a more conciliatory tone otherwise he will end up hurting her chances.

Oh are you saying he could be her Vice President? I think I wouldn't mind. I wonder when VPs get chosen...

[Crissi]

Oh are you saying he could be her Vice President? I think I wouldn't mind. I wonder when VPs get chosen...

Don't think so. I just read that his support of her depend son how far left she goes. Meaning if she shifts center again like what happens in most elections, his support likely drops or dwindles.

Which, while his right, pretty much confirms why the party's is ambivalent toward a former Independent.

[Independent voter]

Nader is why we had George Bush instead of Al Gore as president.

[Rukh]

I'd start with entitlement and tax reform with respect to corporations. Minimum wage only partially addresses this. If someone is in the full time employ of a company, large or small, that company should pay them enough and provide enough benefits to guarantee their employees don't qualify for government assistance. Anything less is letting those companies mooch off the taxpayer to pad their profits.

Next I'd probably say the systemic inequality in the justice system and education system. There is a lot more to it than raising the minimum wage to $15 and taxing the rich more. Sanders free college is a non-starter. It'll just turn a bachelor's degree into the new high school diploma. I'm for equal access, but those that can't cut it in college do not belong. I prefer Clinton's focus on learning trades through a trade school or community college in addition to curbing costs at universities.

Another problem would be ensuring a liberal Supreme Court that would protect all of the progressive advances made over the last generation. Sanders steps in it here too by announcing he'd require any candidate pledge to overturn Citizen's United during the nomination process. Not only would that set the disturbing precedent of asking justices to announce their decisions prior to hearing a case, it would make any of his nominees unable to be confirmed in the current Senate (or even a narrowly held Democratic Senate.)

I have plenty of other small issues with Sanders, his support for taxpayers covering pseudo-scientific alternative medicines. I don't like his inability to work with anyone that doesn't agree with him on 100% of the issues. I don't like how he labels anyone who disagrees with him as corrupt. He would be completely ineffective as a president because he is incapable of compromise, even with his own party. Finally, Sanders isn't even well informed in his own wheelhouse. Clinton was asked the same question about breaking up the banks that Sanders was and knew the exact sections that could be used in Dodd-Frank. She just has a much better grasp of the issues and how to address them than he does.

Just on one specific point - Sanders is actually fairly decent at working with others. He has to be, he's been in Senate for how long as in independent? His rhetoric right now runs against that I agree, but generally he actually does cooperate. I think his tone of conquest during this election cycle is unhelpful though and matches some of the poorer qualities of the GOP.

[Caolela]

No, there is no proof of anything because if there was then she would be in serious trouble and indicted.

She won't be indicted for something that the President and Congress do on a routine basis that she's been an advocate of, and have made artificially legal through the "Patriot" Act and other unconstitutional means.

Do you really think the criminals are going to prosecute themselves? Have you just emerged from under a rock?

There is however ample evidence of her corporate warmongering. As I've told May90 on other threads, I think it's better if you find the info yourself, which is readily available through basic web search. That way, you can't argue it endlessly here if you'd simply discover the facts on your own, instead of being willfully ignorant.

Why would anyone cast their one vote before they're well informed?

- - - Updated - - -

Nader is why we had George Bush instead of Al Gore as president.

Sorry but that's another canard from people who don't use their brains. The person responsible for Gore’s election loss in 2000 was Gore himself.

Gore didn't even win his home state Tennessee, which would have given him the win. He didn't win Alabama where he didn't allow Clinton to campaign for him, and other states, any one of which would have given him the win.

The Supreme Court by a 5-4 right-wing majority didn't allow a recount in FL, which would have given Gore the win.

Gore didn't challenge the recount issue in the Senate, where as Vice President he was also the President of the Senate, and had a very sympathetic Congress that he likely could have overturned the S.C. decision with. The fix was in, and Gore was part of it.

Several other reasons.

It was not Nader's running, it was the Dems and Rep's usual complicity to fuck you over that put Shrub in office.

[Nadiru]

Nader is why we had George Bush instead of Al Gore as president.

Elian Gonzalez is why we had Bush instead of Gore. Not that Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq in a post-9/11 world. Al Gore was as hawkish a Senator as they come.

[Caolela]

Elian Gonzalez is why we had Bush instead of Gore. Not that Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq in a post-9/11 world. Al Gore was as hawkish a Senator as they come.

Gonzalez what?

Gore would have been little different than Shrub on the war issues, I'll grant you that.

[Gray_Matter]

Oh are you saying he could be her Vice President? I think I wouldn't mind. I wonder when VPs get chosen...

I think that bridge has been burnt. That's not to say that he can't get her to push for some of his policies. Elizabeth Warren might be an alternative running mate.

- - - Updated - - -

She won't be indicted for something that the President and Congress do on a routine basis that she's been an advocate of, and have made artificially legal through the "Patriot" Act and other unconstitutional means.

Do you really think the criminals are going to prosecute themselves? Have you just emerged from under a rock?

There is however ample evidence of her corporate warmongering. As I've told May90 on other threads, I think it's better if you find the info yourself, which is readily available through basic web search. That way, you can't argue it endlessly here if you'd simply discover the facts on your own, instead of being willfully ignorant.

Why would anyone cast their one vote before they're well informed?

I can guarantee that the GOP would have taken her to the cleaners if there was any proof. Just look at the lengths they went to with Benghazi and the emails. Just because something is "on the web" that doesn't mean that it's true. Hell, I can go an edit Wikipedia right now. I can go and make a movie ripping a politician to shreds and claim that it's true but in reality, I would need to provide real proof if I want it to stick in a court of law. When did it become right to just make baseless accusations and pass them off the truth?

[McCulloch]

I think that bridge has been burnt. That's not to say that he can't get her to push for some of his policies. Elizabeth Warren might be an alternative running mate.

I made my prediction for Tim Kaine in 2013.

Tom Perez: Politically untested and unknown. Labor Sec. isn't good preparation for POTUS.

Deval Patrick: Works for Bain Capital. Ain't gonna happen.

Sherrod Brown: Solid choice, but gives Rs another Senate seat.

Mark Warner: Solid choice, but is a multimillionaire. Too rich in the era of Bernie Sanders.

Elizabeth Warren: Doesn't mesh well with Hillary and 2 women isn't going to happen soon.

Julian Castro: Same issues as Perez. She doesn't need to energize Latinos as much with Trump or Cruz. They'll come out.

Cory Booker: He's an alright pick. Still in first term and NY/NJ may not be great, but still fine.

Tim Kaine: Swing state, foreign and domestic policy experience. Speaks fluent Spanish and does Hispanic outreach. Balances out age well enough at 58. Helps with her white man issue.

[Caolela]

I can guarantee that the GOP would have taken her to the cleaners if there was any proof. Just look at the lengths they went to with Benghazi and the emails. Just because something is "on the web" that doesn't mean that it's true. Hell, I can go an edit Wikipedia right now. I can go and make a movie ripping a politician to shreds and claim that it's true but in reality, I would need to provide real proof if I want it to stick in a court of law. When did it become right to just make baseless accusations and pass them off the truth?

You haven't figured out how this stuff works yet? The FBI has a lot of info on Clinton's e-mail issue too, but to date they haven't prosecuted. Why do you think that is? I've spoken on that in this thread as well.

Some of you need to get over your naivete and ignorance, actually brainwashing, on these things.

[Nadiru]

Gonzalez what?

Gore would have been little different than Shrub on the war issues, I'll grant you that.

An event which galvanized Cuban-Americans towards Bush II in the heart of the precincts which ended up costing Gore the election. Yeah, Gore was a a fuck-up in his campaign, but that's the proximate cause, right there.

[Deleted]

A good, short and relatively simple analysis on both Hillary's as well as Bernie's tax plans.

[Gray_Matter]

You haven't figured out how this stuff works yet? The FBI has a lot of info on Clinton's e-mail issue too, but to date they haven't prosecuted. Why do you think that is? I've spoken on that in this thread as well.

Some of you need to get over your naivete and ignorance, actually brainwashing, on these things.

You realize that you are deep into conspiracy theories here, don't you?