Why Would Anyone Not Want to Vote for Bernie Sanders

[PC2]

Income inequality is so bad that the poorest quarile is the bottom 80% of people.

That's not how quartiles work... Anyhow, we will increase the welfare budget over time, it isn't a problem.

[Graeham]

Well I'm not American but I'm wary of the guy because when he rants about the 'super rich' I have no doubt that he'll use the Middle Class as scapegoats instead of, you know, going after tax evading corporations and the super wealthy among his own allies once he's in office. You know, like pretty much every other politician promising the same thing goes.

[Dug]

Well I'm not American but I'm wary of the guy because when he rants about the 'super rich' I have no doubt that he'll use the Middle Class as scapegoats instead of, you know, going after tax evading corporations and the super wealthy among his own allies once he's in office. You know, like pretty much every other politician promising the same thing goes.

Idk Bernie is pretty damn consistent about not being a corporate shill. I'd trust him to tell them to fuck off when they wave their money in his face.

[Blightwraith]

Then why don't people simply elect Bernie as president and elect a house and senate of Democrats that will work with him to see his plans realized? You do realize that people vote to put people in the house and senate right?

I would need to check but as it stands I don't believe there are enough seats in play this election cycle that would allow for the democrats to regain control of the either the house or senate. Of the seats available some are likely going to be in areas that are heavily republican so they are unlikely to change. Also keep in mind that Bernie being a Democrat doesn't guarantee unanimous Democrat support for his proposals. Even should the Democrats regain control of both chambers of Congress he would need to also win over moderate Democrats who are likely to not support his ideas.

I do realize quite well how our government works. I don't see how that really has any baring on this conversation though.

[Fugus]

Then why don't people simply elect Bernie as president and elect a house and senate of Democrats that will work with him to see his plans realized? You do realize that people vote to put people in the house and senate right?

Because in my state, North Carolina, it would take about 80% of the popular vote for Democrats to even get 50% of the seats due to gerrymandering.

We are red in name only at this point. The will of the people is firmly blue while the voting has us split as most of them don't even bother to vote now as their votes quite literally do not count unless it is in massively overwhelming numbers but even with a 50/50 split in the popular vote, the seats are split 3 to 10 in the GOP's favor.

[nanook12]

Increased competition doesn't negate corporations passing the tax burden onto consumers, but there are very few monopolies. Obamacare is a prime example, either employers cut hours to employees so they weren't full time or they passed the costs on to the employees.

Also, it's funny how yesterday Marco Rubio is all like go to my website and see all the American clothing manufacturers that produce goods in America. A) I couldn't find it after 20 mins of looking, not counting 10 mins trying first with Google. Finally settled on going to Made In America sites and sure enough, no major clothing line is made in America.

That is not true. The fundamental ethos of capitalism is that when business competes consumers win. Businesses will compete against one another and come up with ways to lower prices and pass less of the higher tax burden; however, this cannot happen with monopolies as there is no competition and they control the market price. And you are very wrong about there not being many monopolies in the USA. It only has 3 major cable television providers, 6 major banks, 1 energy supplier, 3-4 retail giants, etc. Anti-trust laws that are used to break up massive corporations that inevitably form in a capitalistic system have not been used for the past 60 years. USA has massive monopoly problems.

[xChurch]

I would need to check but as it stands I don't believe there are enough seats in play this election cycle that would allow for the democrats to regain control of the either the house or senate. Of the seats available some are likely going to be in areas that are heavily republican so they are unlikely to change. Also keep in mind that Bernie being a Democrat doesn't guarantee unanimous Democrat support for his proposals. Even should the Democrats regain control of both chambers of Congress he would need to also win over moderate Democrats who are likely to not support his ideas.

I do realize quite well how our government works. I don't see how that really has any baring on this conversation though.

The Senate can be done because it hasn't been rigged, the House however will under no circumstances change to Democratic control until 2020 at the earliest when the district lines can be redrawn and even then that's only assuming the Republicans don't do it all over again which would ensure their continued control until 2030.

[Matchles]

I'm worried about his ability to compromise on the issues. When you start miles apart in a negotiation it is incredibly difficult to get either side to make the first move towards the center. I think tweaking the ACA is preferable to scrapping the industry. I think there are too many people at the economic margins that can't wait for the time it will take to install his plan of revolution. I prefer a pragmatist to an idealist. I don't think the bully pulpit is as strong as he believes.

[Grapemask]

Most people don't understand his economics and don't want to. Also, judging by other threads on this forum, most people don't understand that socialism is not communism and cannot be convinced otherwise. Further, they don't understand that Sanders isn't looking to incorporate socialism; he embraces socialist values and that is reflected in his policy ideas, but America is by no means suddenly going to drop its current government and constitution and become a socialist state.

[negawonka]

I totally agree with the spirituality part and personal growth. I was more referring to the income tax part, how do you expect humanity to progress technology and science wise without central Government allowing all people to constantly enjoy better and better living standards? We are far beyond to point of being able to progress in knowledge without help from the Government in at least some capacity. Your vision seems more like it would stagnate our species rather than advance it, unless what you want is a simpler time.

You are assuming it needs to progress beyond technology . . .

People can obtain happiness though simplicity alone, and what improvement needs to be made on happiness?

[Xandrigity]

He is a self proclaimed socialist. There are alot of other reasons but that's top of the list for me.

[PC2]

Most people don't understand his economics and don't want to. Also, judging by other threads on this forum, most people don't understand that socialism is not communism and cannot be convinced otherwise. Further, they don't understand that Sanders isn't looking to incorporate socialism; he embraces socialist values and that is reflected in his policy ideas, but America is by no means suddenly going to drop its current government and constitution and become a socialist state.

We already have a mixed economy and socialism. We've been socialists for a long time.

[Dug]

He is a self proclaimed socialist. There are alot of other reasons but that's top of the list for me.

You've been brainwashed into thinking that's a scary thing.

[Kathandira]

He is a self proclaimed socialist. There are alot of other reasons but that's top of the list for me.

Would you have any problem with removing any and all social programs?

[Grapemask]

We already have a mixed economy and socialism. We've been socialists for a long time.

Well, that's certainly true, but it's not fully socialist.

[Stormdash]

Just based on two things alone free college tuition and free healthcare that are payed for by taxing corporations and super rich that whom already pay very little in taxes?

I suppose if this was the limit and depth of my knowledge about public policy and economics, I wouldn't be able to think of a reason not to vote for him either.

[Kathandira]

Well, that's certainly true, but it's not fully socialist.

I don't believe he has any intentions of changing the country into a full socialist society.

[xChurch]

You are assuming it needs to progress beyond technology . . .

People can obtain happiness though simplicity alone, and what improvement needs to be made on happiness?

You can have both though. You don't need to stagnate our species to achieve happiness, happiness is personal, progress is done as a species.

I'm worried about his ability to compromise on the issues. When you start miles apart in a negotiation it is incredibly difficult to get either side to make the first move towards the center. I think tweaking the ACA is preferable to scrapping the industry. I think there are too many people at the economic margins that can't wait for the time it will take to install his plan of revolution. I prefer a pragmatist to an idealist. I don't think the bully pulpit is as strong as he believes.

Compromise is sooooo last millennium.

[PC2]

Well, that's certainly true, but it's not fully socialist.

What are the specific statistics associated with "fully socialist"?

[Kathandira]

What are the specific statistics associated with "fully socialist"?

Removing democracy.