[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Theodarzna]

She would be taking the actions to get reelected in 2020. A core aspect of that is continuing the progression of civil liberties and preventing their back slide.. she is far, far too invested in the left to do anything else. If there's no progress, the next election cycle would be a massive uphill battle, if not a complete slaughter, because it is basically seen as the standard. And ultimately, promoting progressive justices is about the easiest and tidiest way to make sure that the overall trend during her term is progressive.

Again, stop paying so much attention to what a politican says to you. Start paying attention to their ultimate objectives. Trump is all about Trump, and there are plenty of cases that go up to the SCOTUS that involve the rights of corporate entities and the like... his nominees are going to help advance those cases, to ultimately benefit him. Clinton is going to be invested in maintaining the status quo, and since the current status quo involves gradual progress of civil liberties, it really isn't hard to figure out her selections.

If, as many here claim is true, she has zero need for Sanders base of voters, or doesn't need to work for it anyway, why would she worry about re-election in 2020? Obama achieved very little and relied very much on the idiocy of the Republican party to survive. Look at this election, if Not for Trump, Hillary might actually have to do something but the way things are shaping up she can likely win with roughly half her natural base not giving a shit to vote.

Hillary is all about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton dynasty. Hillary is as friendly to said corporate interests as Trump, slightly more so because until it suddenly became unpopular she was a massive champion of TPP/TTIP.

- - - Updated - - -

Voting for a woman because she's a woman is not equality: you're filling in a check-box to pat yourself on the back. Voting for a woman because she's the best candidate is equality.

When you suggest Bernie supporters aren't backing Hillary because they don't care about her 'historic first woman president!!1' you're actually doing a disservice to women (and to hillary), by suggesting she deserves to win due to her sex, not her qualifications.

Hillary is certainly a capable woman, but Bernie is the better candidate. If you believe that, and you actually care about equality (not just dick-stroking to your historic event participation), you would vote for Bernie.

Remember, we are all burning in hell for not supporting her. Though I guess the Sisterhood didn't go to bat for Palin, for some inexplicable reason.

- - - Updated - - -

You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Clinton tried to pass single payer in the 90s, which was the main start of all the right wing attacks on her as an "uppity" First Lady who didn't know her place. She doesn't believe it could pass in this political climate, and she's right. Like so many Sanders supporters, you can't grasp the difference between desirable and feasible.

Clinton has since abandoned her cause, which Bernie has not abandoned it.

[Yvaelle]

I could keep going, but the list basically comes down to either Congress can bottle neck it or his goals aren't specific to Sanders. Or simply aren't things that I care about.

So pitch to me the practical reason why I should support Bernie Sanders for president.

It wasn't meant to be a statement of fact, obviously personal perspective determines who the better candidate is for every individual.

Perhaps I could have better emphasized the, "If you believe that" segment, since the prior line is stating an assumption intended to define the perspective of a Bernie supporter (that Bernie is the better candidate, for them).

Given the perspective of a Bernie supporter, to vote for Hillary because it would be historic, when you believe Bernie is the better candidate - would be misogynistic (since you are then saying that her sex, not her qualification, deserves to win).

The point I'm trying to convey is that to tell us we need to vote for Hillary 'because she's a woman and it will be historic', is a terrible, and actually detrimental (to female equality) argument.

[Gray_Matter]

Interestingly enough, at the point when all of the media outlets claimed "100%" of California's votes were tallied, giving Hillary 1.9 million votes and Bernie 1.5 million votes, around TWO MILLION ballots were still uncounted. Since then, Hillary's lead in California has dropped somewhat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-a-miracle/
https://www.rt.com/usa/346685-sander...counties-flip/

Whether this changes anything as far as the total pledged delegates go, it's still hilarious. This isn't "democracy". You've got 5.5 million people voting and you dismiss 2 million of those? What?

It's completely legitimate to call elections before the full results are in. Media companies look at the people that have voted so far and predict and outcome. In Arizona, it almost burnt them with Trump being called as the winner at 3% of the votes. All that would happen is that they end up with egg on their faces if they are wrong.

Regarding your claims above. They didn't claim that 100% of the votes were in, they said that 100% of the precincts were reporting.

The fact from CA are as follows:

Early voters had Clinton way in front. To the tune of about 400k votes. The voting on the day was pretty close with Clinton very slightly ahead. It went up to about 420k by the end of the day. With that in mind it made perfect sense that the media companies called for Clinton. Since then, Clinton's lead in votes has actually increased from 420k to 470k while her lead as a percentage has dropped from to 10.5% from just under 13%. Why is this so? Because the votes that are being counted now are late mail in and drop off votes that are breaking close to even with Clinton only holding a slight 2% odd lead. 1.9 million out of 3.4 million is a much higher percentage than 2.4 million out of 4.4 million.

Interestingly, that matches the recent polls. Obviously the recent polls didn't give enough weight to the early voters.

Also, most media companies were expecting the lead (as a percentage) to drop, there is just now way that it would actually reverse which could give Bernie a lead.

On the delegate side of things. After the initial votes were tallied it looked like Clinton would get 269 delegates and Bernie 206 delegates. That has now changed to 263 and 212. It will probably drop a little bit more but not by much because every new vote counted has less impact because there are more votes in the bucket already counted.

- - - Updated - - -

And full disclosure, I have (very recently) said I'm only voting for her if my state is highly contested. I'll only take the Hillary pill if I absolutely have to :P

Just be careful. Michigan with Clinton and Bernie springs to mind. The polls can be wrong. In Michigan's case, part of the problem was that people thought she was way ahead so they decided not to bother voting.

Unfortunately, polls can impact the outcome of voting.

[Bushtuckrman]

Come home Bern outs, together we will defeat Clinton and end the establishment fucking everybody over.

[Matchles]

I guess declaring it never ever will happened is not evidence enough, thus I suppose if you creatively define the meaning of the words "Never," "ever," "come," "to," "Pass," then sure, guess she changed nothing in that classic Clintonite redefinition of the English Language.

No! That isn't evidence enough. I could say we will never ever travel to the nearest star. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the idea. I must admit I am impressed with how steadfast you can hold to a belief while being shown in numerous ways you are completely wrong. I'm just going to chalk this up to you not understanding the difference between "can" and "want."

[Theodarzna]

No! That isn't evidence enough.

Well that is all I needed to hear. You could have just said that in response to the original video and saved us some time.

[Dextroden]

Well that is all I needed to hear. You could have just said that in response to the original video and saved us some time.

Acting like you wouldn't reject everything he would say.

You are a delightful stooge.

[Matchles]

Well that is all I needed to hear. You could have just said that in response to the original video and saved us some time.

That was clearly implied in every response where I said you were wrong. Obviously, if you are linking a video that doesn't say what you claim it does, it is not going to be enough evidence to support your view.

[Gray_Matter]

"The better candidate" depends entirely on the outcomes that you want. There is nothing that Sanders provides that is simultaneously beneficial to me and feasible in passing through Congress and the courts. On the other hand, if Clinton simply sits there and keeps things moving along for four years, it really doesn't bother me because I am strongly benefiting in the current system.

But, let's go through some of Sander's biggest points. I have already gone through college. I have private medical insurance, and a high paying job. I don't particularly care about "integrity in politics." I am politically active even without being a US citizen and understand the system far better than those who go to those rallies calling for change without even knowing the names of their congressmen, and the fiction of corporations controlling the government really doesn't impact me at all. Wealth inequality does concern me, but not so much that I wish to destroy the entire system to accomplish it; I would much rather have government programs properly funded and logistically optimized, not set on fire. Making college the basic standard of education is not only a null point, but something I directly oppose; the markets are already grossly saturated. I would far prefer the German model of specialized trade schools. The progression of the minimum wage is already going at varying paces without his interference. Racial justice is a cultural factor; anyone who thinks he is going to champion a new age of racial justice is horrendously deluded. I have no issues with the current immigration system; the fact that I'm an 8 year immigrant may indicate that I've paid a bit of attention to the system. Climate change is going to rest on Congress, not the executive. Same with affordable housing. Fighting for womens rights at this stage is best accomplished by electing a progressive court justice, which is something that Clinton is already invested in. Getting money out of politics involves active participation in the political process by massive groups of people, since ultimately money in politics is a mean to an end; alienating people from engaging in politics does the literal opposite of this goal. LGBT goals same as women's rights. I do not care in the slightest about tribal rights. Caring for veterans means cleaning up the VA and such, which requires active Congressional participation. Single payer medicaid is not going to happen. Expansions of social security may happen depending on Congress, but it is not an issue that concerns me. Puerto Rico's statehood is a Congressional matter.

I could keep going, but the list basically comes down to either Congress can bottle neck it or his goals aren't specific to Sanders. Or simply aren't things that I care about.

So pitch to me the practical reason why I should support Bernie Sanders for president.

An interesting article on where the general public stand on Bernie's policies:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...and-still-win/

To sum it up, Clinton is closer to public opinion than Bernie.

- - - Updated - - -

The point I'm trying to convey is that to tell us we need to vote for Hillary 'because she's a woman and it will be historic', is a terrible, and actually detrimental (to female equality) argument.

I agree. I would say that you need to vote for the person that is closest to matching your ideals with one caveat. You also look at what is the likely outcome in the election. For example, I might think that my neighbor is a great candidate but voting for him would be a complete was because he won't get anywhere. In that case it would make sense for me to vote where I can see my vote making a difference in my life rather than what is perfect for me but will never happen. I have asked this question before. Would you expect/want Clinton supporters to vote for Bernie if he had won? When a person runs to be the leader of a coalition of groups, everyone entering has a reasonable expectation that their views are similar and would expect the losers to back them in the case that they win and vice versa. That's why it's a coalition. Because they have similar views. If every group entered without that intension then the coalition would be useless. If some groups entered only on the condition that their candidate won then that would be disingenuous.

[Theodarzna]

Come home Bern outs, together we will defeat Clinton and end the establishment fucking everybody over.

Trump is the one true memelord, Begotten not made, the trueborn son of /pol/ whose sacrifice redeems us all.

[Dextroden]

Trump is the one true memelord, Begotten not made, the trueborn son of /pol/ whose sacrifice redeems us all.

Ah child. In your haste you turn your back on an ally to slay Hillary, the mother of all monsters and the original sin.

[nextormento]

Voting for a woman because she's a woman is not equality: you're filling in a check-box to pat yourself on the back.

Alternatively, they're correcting systemic bias with their personal vote.
So, I'm curious:
-As a test on consistency, do you also believe affirmative action to be merit-less, back-patting, or feels-good legislation?.
-If you don't, how do you reconcile the two beliefs?.

[Kraenen]

Alternatively, they're correcting systemic bias with their personal vote.
So, I'm curious:
-As a test on consistency, do you also believe affirmative action to be merit-less, back-patting, or feels-good legislation?.
-If you don't, how do you reconcile the two beliefs?.

There's no "correction", in fact they're only creating more bias in the system, not less.

[nextormento]

There's no "correction", in fact they're only creating more bias in the system, not less.

Right. Just like AA does introduce more bias in the name of correction. Thought we may collectively feel ok with that.
I'm just interested in the possible reconciliation of beliefs if there's any.

[Bushtuckrman]

Alternatively, they're correcting systemic bias with their personal vote.
So, I'm curious:
-As a test on consistency, do you also believe affirmative action to be merit-less, back-patting, or feels-good legislation?.
-If you don't, how do you reconcile the two beliefs?.

How about you just don't fucking vote over somebodies gender. It's not hard. Just don't see Hillary as female. See Hillary as a presidential candidate that is currently under an FBI criminal investigation with more skeletons in its closet than an entire graveyard.

[Fugus]

But you can use his loss as proof he was cheated.

Sanders logic is delightful.

Actually that isn't Sanders logic, that is you projecting how you wish I thought so you can avoid the truth.

Reread what you quoted. Nowhere in it did I claim that his loss was proof of cheating.

I said that the DNC and media interfered and tilted the odds against him greatly. Win or lose, that would not have changed that. If Sanders had still won, that would have meant he won in spite of it, it wouldn't have meant it didn't exist.

Please don't project half assed logic like that to ignore what was said with your assumptions.

Just to make sure it isn't lost, my exact words were.

And now just like before, you will keep mentioning how Sanders couldn't beat Clinton but neglect to mention or attempt to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that it wasn't an even head to head fight when the DNC and Media were attempting to put their weight into it on her behalf. Could Sanders beat Clinton in a heads up? We personally can never know for sure from this primary as both the DNC and Media made sure that never happened.

You can't use this primary as proof that Sanders couldn't beat Clinton in a heads up election because they never had a heads up election thanks to the interference from the media and DNC.

If you have problems with that don't makeup a straw man to burn down a comment that was not made.

[Pterodactylus]

the "Biden rule".

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Yvaelle]

Alternatively, they're correcting systemic bias with their personal vote.
So, I'm curious:
-As a test on consistency, do you also believe affirmative action to be merit-less, back-patting, or feels-good legislation?.
-If you don't, how do you reconcile the two beliefs?.

I think if your approach to affirmative action is to have a quota of a minority you must accept, then yes - that's merit-less back-patting that doesn't resolve the underlying issue: it doesn't address or resolve the systemic problem, it only covers it up (which if anything, enables it to fester and worsen).

If your affirmative action policy is aimed at preventing discrimination from occurring, or providing the means for - as example - an underprivileged minority to have the same opportunities - then I absolutely support affirmative action policies in that sense.

Examples:

If Harvard said, "We will always issue an offer of acceptance to, at least, the top 10 'Black' applicants each year": that's an example of ineffective affirmative action. What if only 10 apply that year, and the bottom few are grossly under-qualified? If only 9 apply, are you now racist?

If you instead said, "We will place in trust $1 million dollars per year toward scholarships for minority 'Black' applicants to Harvard, who qualified and were issued an offer of acceptance - but lack the resources to attend. That's an excellent example of effective affirmative action.

Or, if you went to school districts and fought to give minority-dominant schools access to the same textbooks and quality of teachers as the wealthy white school across the road. That would be an effective example of affirmative action.

If you caught an admissions officer intentionally throwing out black applicants due to their personal prejudice, and you made their actions public, denounced it, and then fired them for it. That is an example of ending systemic discrimination, and effective affirmative action.

See the difference?


Edit: To take this a step further, if you are interested in my ethics - I never donate to charities which go to alleviating suffering (example: if someone calls and asks for a donation to help children with cancer, I say no). Instead, all my charitable giving (~10% of my income), goes toward research to cure problems - like cancer research.

So for example when UNICEF wants $1/day or whatever to feed the starving in Africa, I tell them no. But if they want $1/day to build wells, farms, and roads in Africa - I say yes - because that will end the systemic poverty that causes starvation.

[Deleted]

Hillary is all about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton dynasty.

Well, in fact, it's looking more and more like she's not even about the "Clinton dynasty", but her own dynasty, and showing up Bill. She looks like she's been mortally wounded by Bill, who was a beloved prez, but who then put his cigar in other women during that presidency, and thus hurt Hillary in a way that there would just not be any overcoming it and getting over it. But, instead of being the "victim", and fading away through a divorce as the divorcee president's wife who got cheated on, she decided that her political career will outshine that of her husbands, and in the end, it'll be her who's laughing.

That's honestly how she has seemed for years now. Like she's been fighting really hard to dig herself out of the hole Bill put her in, and like she'll do it no matter what. Screw ideals, screw policies, lie everywhere constantly, walk over people, and just assume the throne.

I could be mistaken, but that's how she's looked like to me for a long, long time now. And, that's how some of her supporters feel like to me, like they're supporting that exact action and path. With rhetoric like "I'm with her", "it's her time", "she deserves it", and so on.

Thanks for the chuckle.

You're welcome. I mean, I'm glad someone picks up on my sarcasm here.

[Theodarzna]

Well, in fact, it's looking more and more like she's not even about the "Clinton dynasty", but her own dynasty, and showing up Bill. She looks like she's been mortally wounded by Bill, who was a beloved prez, but who then put his cigar in other women during that presidency, and thus hurt Hillary in a way that there would just not be any overcoming it and getting over it. But, instead of being the "victim", and fading away through a divorce as the divorcee president's wife who got cheated on, she decided that her political career will outshine that of her husbands, and in the end, it'll be her who's laughing.

That's honestly how she has seemed for years now. Like she's been fighting really hard to dig herself out of the hole Bill put her in, and like she'll do it no matter what. Screw ideals, screw policies, lie everywhere constantly, walk over people, and just assume the throne.

I could be mistaken, but that's how she's looked like to me for a long, long time now. And, that's how some of her supporters feel like to me, like they're supporting that exact action and path. With rhetoric like "I'm with her", "it's her time", "she deserves it", and so on.

You're welcome. I mean, I'm glad someone picks up on my sarcasm here.

..... I admire your spirit, but lets not psychoanalyze her. I mean I dislike her policy, but like the torrid love life of her "husband," is sort of her own problem. If anything if her goals were those I'd even admire her for it, possibly voting simply to help someone spite a lover who scorned them is for me as compelling as blocking TPP.