[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Gray_Matter]

Not when you are 20 points out, that's way outside the margin of statistical error. They were massively out in the UK election also.

If they want to just be a poll aggregator, fine, but they clearly imply they are offering more than that.

You should listen to their podcast. They were saying before the election that it was much closer than the polls were predicting. Like a few percentage difference.

- - - Updated - - -

if we're so goddamned stupendous, why bitch about what sander proposes? free healthcare, taking care of the sick. free college so our average person might not be stupid enough to vote trump for real. if we got all that fucking money, what's the problem with giving it out like this?

Education and Healthcare are too expensive in the US for them to be free. Compare the price of those 2 against other countries. There is also a reason why countries like Denmark (which Bernie cites as his perfect financial model) have a tax rate of over 55% compared to the US tax rate of 30% odd.

[McCulloch]

Not when you are 20 points out, that's way outside the margin of statistical error. They were massively out in the UK election also.

If they want to just be a poll aggregator, fine, but they clearly imply they are offering more than that.

Say you're making a soup. You put in carrots, onions, potatoes, and some seasoning. But, your broth is toilet water. The soup will be shit, even though all those other ingredients were good.

That's what happened. They consistently got shit polls. You can add all the other elements like open or closed, is it a primary or caucus, take demographics into account, but if you only get shit polls, you can't do much with the rest. I'm assuming polls are weighted very, very heavily since it's a huge part of making a prediction. In fact, it's so huge, they don't make official predictions without adequate polling.

[Skroe]

if we're so goddamned stupendous, why bitch about what sander proposes? free healthcare, taking care of the sick. free college so our average person might not be stupid enough to vote trump for real. if we got all that fucking money, what's the problem with giving it out like this?

no, we waste ourselves on foreigners, regime change wars(if someone thinks these are a good thing, they're pathetic fucking idiots that should be lobotomized), and who knows what the fuck else.

You got it all wrong. Legitimately all wrong.

The argument isn't that we can or not. That's the lazy man's argument and highly disingenuous. If a person ever says, at a national level "we can't afford X", whther they are talking about anything from education to healthcare to defense to space travel to wellfare, what they're trying to do is use money as a hammer to get their way. It's nonsense.

The problem with Sanders, my problem with Sanders specifically, is the not whether we can, but if we should, and the efficiency of such a route.

Many people (I am not one of them) who are against Free College for example, philosophically believe that the State has no role in providing higher education and that it represents an unwarranted growth of the state. That is a legitimate, if disagreeable, political belief. Many people (I am not one of them) thinks the state does more harm then good when involved in health care, or energy, or education. And keep in mind why many conservatives are against the department of Education, now that I brought that up (I am not): it's a political objection the idea that Federal Power should have a guiding role in education of our children at the expense of local control, and ESPECIALLY at the expense of the ability of parents to instill THEIR values in THEIR children.

These are legitimate political positions. They have bad points, and good points. Where Sanders stands on all of these, in opposition to them, represents legitimate political disagreement.

It is really that simple. This country has seen rapid political consensus and acted quickly as a result. After 9/11, there was a rapid and forceful nationalization of airport security, which had been a rather flourishing private industry. Had Bill Clinton tried that in 1998, there would have been a major politica fight similar to Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers. Just think about that for a moment: the United States, within your lifetime, nationalized an entire industry, and it wasn't controversial at the time, and even today, despite the TSA's many failings, few people long for the return of private airport security.

In the 2008 financial crisis, the US essentially temporarily nationalized the banks. The fed and treasury took independence of action away from the biggest banks of the country to prevent a collapse - the banks were ALL forced to agree to the bailouts and the new conditions. Compelled. No choice. And how much did it cost? About a trillion dollars. Over night. The country got out it's big fat credit card and paid for it. TARP, in the end, turned a tidy profit for the taxpayer too.

That last paragraph of yours illustrates you have no clue what you're talking about. US spending on Defense is $680 billion a year. Bereft of our allies, it would be even more, not less. Foreign aid comes in at a paltry $40 billion a year. The cost of the wars? $20 billion a year. The various foreign bases? Mostly paid for by host countries, but cheap.

You need to look at this and look at it carefully:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...n_1012#usgs302

The US spends:
$1.3 trillion on pensions per year,
$1.485 trillion on Health Care
$1 trillion on Education
$830 billion on defense
$456 billion on welfare
$300 billion on infrastructure
$288 billion on the police and prisons
and just $351 billion on debt


That's a lot of money on a lot of things. So tell me again, hows that $40 billion on foreign aid look now?

Bernie Sanders is ABSOLUTELY right when he says the US is rich enough to pay for these programs. The problem though isn't if the US CAN pay a $1.3 trillion a year expansion in Medicare (for example), by universalizing it cradle to the grave, when alternative, (and my opinion) better plans can be done for a fraction of the cost. Or if you're some other conservatives, want to shrink government down because you're ideologically opposed to it, consequences be damned.

That's the REAL issue at hand. Not CAN WE but SHOULD WE. Sanders should be absolutely applauded for his stance on college in particular, because it is going to get worse. Today's heavily indepted college students will only accrue more debt when their kids go to college in 20+ years, and 20+ years after that, they'll be ready for retirement without retirement savings because they'll be paying a lifetime of debt. It's a huge snowball effect. But is the solution full taxpayer funding of public universities? Well that depends on other factors (namely how their cost-per-student is going to be rigorously controlled in my book... if it can be controlled, then sure. If it is going to grow and grow, not without control of that).

[Malagan]

trump's not even remotely as dangerous as people say.

Trump's a dimwit who barely has the support of his own party. I doubt he'll succeed with any of his changes. Makes him considerably less scary.

[derpkitteh]

Education and Healthcare are too expensive in the US for them to be free. Compare the price of those 2 against other countries. There is also a reason why countries like Denmark (which Bernie cites as his perfect financial model) have a tax rate of over 55% compared to the US tax rate of 30% odd.

cut out the regime change, quit the over spending on the military, cut all pointless foreign aid, legalize marijuana so that millions aren't wasted on jailing people for a harmless plant, cut back the war on drugs in general massively. there's so much shit we could do.

[Skroe]

cut out the regime change, quit the over spending on the military, cut all pointless foreign aid, legalize marijuana so that millions aren't wasted on jailing people for a harmless plant, cut back the war on drugs in general massively. there's so much shit we could do.

AH yes. Heaven forbid you don't get your legal weed.

Suddenly this explains oh so very much.

[derpkitteh]

AH yes. Heaven forbid you don't get your legal weed.

Suddenly this explains oh so very much.

i can't do drugs, because i panic too easily.

i panic if a cold pill makes me feel weird.

[Skroe]

i can't do drugs, because i panic too easily.

i panic if a cold pill makes me feel weird.

The plot thins.

[DrMcNinja]

if we're so goddamned stupendous, why bitch about what sander proposes? free healthcare, taking care of the sick. free college so our average person might not be stupid enough to vote trump for real. if we got all that fucking money, what's the problem with giving it out like this?

no, we waste ourselves on foreigners, regime change wars(if someone thinks these are a good thing, they're pathetic fucking idiots that should be lobotomized), and who knows what the fuck else.

Because as it stands, truly free healthcare and education are pretty much impossible. Colleges in the US have many more facilities than what most of Europe's colleges and Universities offer, hence the high price tag. If you want to make college affordable and cheaper, you would need to reform the entire system.

[Daerio]

Because as it stands, truly free healthcare and education are pretty much impossible. Colleges in the US have many more facilities than what most of Europe's colleges and Universities offer, hence the high price tag. If you want to make college affordable and cheaper, you would need to reform the entire system.

Which honestly has to be done either way. It's unsustainable as is, just like our political system which ignores all problems in favor of writing legislation which increases their own wealth and power instead of addressing issues.

Health care is on that list, too. Hillary says we shouldn't drag the country through another health care debate after the great success that was Hillarycare, I think most adults with recent experience in health care (you know, the ones actually going to the doctor, not just the ones with insurance who think they're covered until they actually get sick) know better.

[Deleted]

Because as it stands, truly free healthcare and education are pretty much impossible. Colleges in the US have many more facilities than what most of Europe's colleges and Universities offer, hence the high price tag. If you want to make college affordable and cheaper, you would need to reform the entire system.

The main counter-argument to Sanders seems to be in essence "This will be difficult so we shouldn't try". Particulary in America, that isn't a very effective argument.

[kyoloco]

sanders' got the best t shirts

[DrMcNinja]

The main counter-argument to Sanders seems to be in essence "This will be difficult so we shouldn't try". Particulary in America, that isn't a very effective argument.

No it isn't. It's worth trying to change the system for the better even if a whole lot of moneygrubbing scumbags are in your way.

- - - Updated - - -

sanders' got the best t shirts

Feel the BERN!

[InventiveMeasures]

It's adorable at just how much time certain Clinton supporters have dedicated in a Sanders megathread to argue that she's better fit as the democratic nominee. Can't argue about differences in policy, changed rhetoric, newly adopted issues, switching views that directly contradict the other (quite a few of those), mainstream media that also frame questions in debates to favor one particular candidate, which one receives large campaign contributions from mainstream media, large banks and a variety of other large corporations. Oh no, we don't want to talk about that but rather the lead in votes.

You have to admit this is pretty funny. I liked the Bernie Sanders skit too.

[Daerio]

SNL has been pretty amazing this election cycle, much better than the decades of Bush/Obama impersonations imo.

Solid political satire.

[Shadowferal]

You need to look at this and look at it carefully:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...n_1012#usgs302

Tracks back to the Tax Foundation, whose Board Chairman is also associated with Koch Charitable Industries, and it's
president used to be a research analyst at the Heritage Foundation, I'm gonna go
with..."Yeah, this is right wing tea-bagger data pusher."

But so far I've not been surprised at all that right-wingers and tea-baggers support Clinton.
From a progressive perspective however that's a good reason to vote against her.

[Daerio]

Tracks back to the Tax Foundation, whose Board Chairman is also associated with Koch Charitable Industries, and it's
president used to be a research analyst at the Heritage Foundation, I'm gonna go
with..."Yeah, this is right wing tea-bagger data pusher."

But so far I've not been surprised at all that right-wingers and tea-baggers support Clinton.
From a progressive perspective however that's a good reason to vote against her.

No, no, no! You don't have a choice! It's only Clinton! YOU MUST VOTE FOR HER!

But it also doesn't matter if you don't vote for her, because your vote doesn't matter, and you don't matter.

[ringpriest]

But so far I've not been surprised at all that right-wingers and tea-baggers support Clinton.
From a progressive perspective however that's a good reason to vote against her.

Not with Trump as her opponent. And, I say that as someone whose pretty far out in the left side of the political field - it's not that I like Clinton, (because I really, really don't) but when faced with the choice between a corrupt, pro-establishment neo-liberal insider or an ignorant, bigoted juvenile fascist wanna-be con-artist? That's not a choice, it's a moral imperative (it's also a damning condemnation of our "democracy", the GOP, and our entire electoral system, but that is beside the point); Trump has already damaged the US, and he's exposed more weaknesses that are unlikely to go unexploited in the future (I suspect it's going to take a while to become obvious, but he's badly warped politics with his open calls for violence and even more overt embrace of ignorance, hate and school-yard "tactics") but what he'd do as President would be far, far worse (oh, people can come up with some imaginary Trump who wouldn't be all bad - that there are voters trying so hard to do exactly that is a testament to how bad things have gotten in the US - but Trump has shown none of the positive qualities people pretend to assign him; the Trump we see is all we're ever going to get).

[Skroe]

Not with Trump as her opponent. And, I say that as someone whose pretty far out in the left side of the political field - it's not that I like Clinton, (because I really, really don't) but when faced with the choice between a corrupt, pro-establishment neo-liberal insider or an ignorant, bigoted juvenile fascist wanna-be con-artist? That's not a choice, it's a moral imperative (it's also a damning condemnation of our "democracy", the GOP, and our entire electoral system, but that is beside the point); Trump has already damaged the US, and he's exposed more weaknesses that are unlikely to go unexploited in the future (I suspect it's going to take a while to become obvious, but he's badly warped politics with his open calls for violence and even more overt embrace of ignorance, hate and school-yard "tactics") but what he'd do as President would be far, far worse (oh, people can come up with some imaginary Trump who wouldn't be all bad - that there are voters trying so hard to do exactly that is a testament to how bad things have gotten in the US - but Trump has shown none of the positive qualities people pretend to assign him; the Trump we see is all we're ever going to get).

This. So much this. And I bolded my favorite part. As I've said elsewhere, for me, this has been the easiest election season of my life.

I really see it as a black and white issue. A vote for Trump is a vote for Putinism in America and a body blow against liberal democracy. Are you against fascism, racism, authoritarianism and thuggishness in politics, among other things? You have a duty to support the least polarized candidate in this election, which is Clinton by default, and smash what Trump represents into pieces before it takes root. It's the duty of all Americans to reject it.

[BuckSparkles]

to support the least polarized candidate in this election, which is Clinton by default,

Are you sure you are "conservative"?

Clinton as the least polarized candidate.

That is very amusing.