Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:58 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462

Why don't you support Bernie Sanders? (if you don't)


Give me reasons why you would not support Sanders as president. His SS expansion bill seems pretty good to me, his M4A bill seems pretty good to me, and I agree with pretty much every position he has. Such as criminals having the right to vote, and in prison. Or such as people being automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Now I understand if someone has issues with his specific healthcare proposal, maybe you think a system like Germany's would work better in america, I don't know you tell me. Any arguments about his viability as a democratic front runner I throw out the window. I wont entertain any notions of biden being a better front runner than sanders, we tried a center-right candidate in 2016 and she got obliterated. I want to know specifics about what you don't support that bernie has proposed, and what other candidates propose that you believe is better. This isn't about what you think is best for dem party, this is about what you thinks best for America. Specifics.
(I'm well aware most dopers are center-left, that's why I want specifics not vague speculations about Americans feelings towards an old white male whos a self proclaimed democratic socialist)
  #2  
Old 06-16-2019, 10:19 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,753
I don't think it constitutes "vague speculation" to believe that electability is a valid concern. I question if Sanders is electable. I might be willing to roll the dice on that factor if it weren't for the fact that I also regard the current incumbent as the proverbial "clear and present danger" and not a typical Republican who can be "lived with". On a lot of fronts this election is the "last shot before the buzzer" and I'm not inclined to take chances.
  #3  
Old 06-16-2019, 10:19 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,744
I do support Sanders... but Clinton didn't get obliterated, and anyway, Biden isn't Clinton.
  #4  
Old 06-16-2019, 10:40 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I do support Sanders... but Clinton didn't get obliterated, and anyway, Biden isn't Clinton.
You're right, he's much worse. He wants to cut social security and medicare, hes pro-war by every stretch of the term, he's voted for things that are anti-gay and unconstitutional, was supported mass incarceration and before any centrists point out so did bernie, well bernie was an independent and only supported as a compromise to protect women.

And yes, Clinton did get "obliterated". How else do you describe her managing to fuck up the 2016 election and lose to trump, I describe it as obliteration. She got obliterated by a richer, whiter, more powerful demagog. It's by all means, obliteration. Hence her political career being virtually non-existent now outside of what little work she does in her foundation and the few tweets she makes.
  #5  
Old 06-17-2019, 02:30 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
And yes, Clinton did get "obliterated". How else do you describe her managing to fuck up the 2016 election and lose to trump, I describe it as obliteration. She got obliterated by a richer, whiter, more powerful demagog. It's by all means, obliteration. Hence her political career being virtually non-existent now outside of what little work she does in her foundation and the few tweets she makes.
When Reagan beat Mondale in 1984 he had 58% of the popular vote and carried 49 states out 50. Reagan obliterated Mondale. When Trump beat Hillary he had 46% of the popular vote and carried 30 states. Hillary managed to get 48% of the popular vote and carried 20 states. It's certainly a Trump victory but calling it an obliteration is a bit of a hyperbole. Unless we're just going to call all victories an obliteration here on out.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #6  
Old 06-17-2019, 02:39 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,697

Moderating


Moving from Great Debates to Elections.

[/moderating]
  #7  
Old 06-17-2019, 02:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
First, a point which many seem to ignore: The President doesn't pass legislation; Congress does. Some of the most controversial legislation has been passed when a centrist was in the White House, not a radical. Who improved relations with China? It was the anti-communist Nixon. Who achieved advances in civil rights? It was the Southern politico L.B. Johnson. If a large swathe of Congress and the American public gets behind UHC, free college, etc. it is more likely to happen with a moderate in the W.H. than a radical whom many Americans fear or despise.

OP doesn't seem interested in debating policy specifics, nor the top three concerns for the Democratic primary season (electability, electability, and ... I'm pulling a Rick Perry here, what was the third top concern? oh yes, Electability), perhaps OP wants to debate how good a President Sanders would actually be.

I'm not really sure how effective and competent a President Sanders would be. Let's go down the checklist: (1) No foreign experience except cavorting with foreign communists in his youth. Check. (2) Alienates rather than might unify half the country. Check. (3) Will be 79 years old by Election Day 2020. Check. (4) His experience as an Administrator was 30 years ago as mayor of a town far far smaller than South Bend, Indiana. Check.

What's not to love?

Last edited by septimus; 06-17-2019 at 02:57 AM.
  #8  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:51 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
First, a point which many seem to ignore: The President doesn't pass legislation; Congress does. Some of the most controversial legislation has been passed when a centrist was in the White House, not a radical. Who improved relations with China? It was the anti-communist Nixon. Who achieved advances in civil rights? It was the Southern politico L.B. Johnson. If a large swathe of Congress and the American public gets behind UHC, free college, etc. it is more likely to happen with a moderate in the W.H. than a radical whom many Americans fear or despise.

OP doesn't seem interested in debating policy specifics, nor the top three concerns for the Democratic primary season (electability, electability, and ... I'm pulling a Rick Perry here, what was the third top concern? oh yes, Electability), perhaps OP wants to debate how good a President Sanders would actually be.

I'm not really sure how effective and competent a President Sanders would be. Let's go down the checklist: (1) No foreign experience except cavorting with foreign communists in his youth. Check. (2) Alienates rather than might unify half the country. Check. (3) Will be 79 years old by Election Day 2020. Check. (4) His experience as an Administrator was 30 years ago as mayor of a town far far smaller than South Bend, Indiana. Check.

What's not to love?
He's been consistent on nearly every position he's held since entering office. He's virtually untouched by corporate money, pacs, hedge funds, etc... He's proposed new ideas in our country, such as free college tuition, universal healthcare, so when you sit there are list of mundane reasons for why Sanders is not electable, please explain why nearly every democratic candidate is running on the positions he introduced in 2016?

I'll tell you why, and you already know why. Because the American people overwhelmingly support Bernie Sander's proposals. Do you really want to get into how electable Sanders is? I'm not going to have this debate if you want to bring up "he lost to hillary" while ignoring the fact every delegate appointed by the DNC voted for hillary, while every non appointed delegate voted Sanders. I also wont have the debate if you're going to fall back on he's not a democrat, you're god damn right he's not a democrat he's a leftist, a real leftist. Not this center right corporate bs the democratic party embodies.

I'm aware dopers are centrists, and I love it that Bernie Sanders triggers centrist who want to pretend like they're leftists. You're no better than a republican if you think you can find the middle ground on every issue. Sorry but in real life, there are sides. You can either let those in power have their way, or you can practice dissidence. Obama spouted change, but he played the role that the democratic party plays. Center right bipartisanship pandering to republicans on nearly every issue. The democratic party if it wants to survive and not get eaten alive, needs to embrace the likes of Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ro Khanna, etc...

Let me make one other thing clear, if it wasn't for Bernie Sanders, do you really believe corporate media would be even mentioning universal healthcare, free college tuition, or raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade? I don't, and I don't think any rational person would either.
  #9  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:57 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post

Let me make one other thing clear, if it wasn't for Bernie Sanders, do you really believe corporate media would be even mentioning universal healthcare, free college tuition, or raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade? I don't, and I don't think any rational person would either.
Good for Bernie.

Now that he's got Americans talking about this stuff, maybe they'll elect someone else who can actually do it.

Last edited by Alessan; 06-17-2019 at 03:57 AM.
  #10  
Old 06-17-2019, 04:25 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Good for Bernie.

Now that he's got Americans talking about this stuff, maybe they'll elect someone else who can actually do it.
Well how will they do that? Biden certainly isn't going to. Other candidate likes harris or booker aren't going to head over to west virginia to pressure Joe Manchin into voting for his "stuff". Bernie has already laid out he will go to the places that we have these kind of people in office at, then pressure them by getting their constituents to support bernie's policies and bills.

Matter of fact, all virtually every other candidate besides a handful of them like Tulsi or yang are going to do is flipflop on this issues and propose half assed versions of them instead. Biden for example wants to cut SS and medicare, meanwhile he thinks it's fine to keep feeding the military industrial complex by playing ball. So this notion someone else will get them passed, no, they wont. It wont be what bernie proposes, it'll be a centrist bill that tries to walk that middle ground that realistically doesn't exist and then do you know whats going to happen? Republicans will cuck the democrats like they have been doing. Paid to lose, and paid to concede.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 06-17-2019 at 04:27 AM.
  #11  
Old 06-17-2019, 04:58 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,625
"Cuck"?
  #12  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:25 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,734
I supported Sanders last time around in the primary because I agreed with his policy positions. I will not support him in the primary this time because I believe that he lacks the ability to beat Trump. If he were to win the Democratic nomination I would absolutely vote for him in the general, which I believe distinguishes me from your typical Sanders supporter. I don't believe that Sanders supporters will be on board with a Democratic nominee that isn't Sanders, and I hope that number is small enough to not tip the general in Trump's electoral favor.
  #13  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:57 AM
epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,804
My sole negative with Sanders is his age. I think the US has done better as a whole when the age of the President trended younger, despite party affiliation.
__________________
"Motorcycles - the cigarettes of transportation." Seth Meyers
  #14  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:02 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
I think Bernie is a little more of a pragmatist than moderates give him credit for, and...I think Biden is more of a progressive than Bernistas give him credit for. Biden is a lifelong centrist, but he has shown the ability to evolve and change.

I know consistency is attractive to people, but having the ability to shift politically and flip flopping are often good things, IMO, not bad. I'd rather have someone who is open to questioning his own beliefs from to time to time. I'd also rather have someone in office who can evaluate his/her situation and understand when he has the power to get something accomplished in its original form, and when he needs to compromise.

One of the reasons why we have the ACA now is that Obama had the ability to do this, and while ACA isn't perhaps as great as it could have been, it's absolutely been a god-send for those who couldn't previously get insurance. Had Obama insisted on a public option in 2009, we wouldn't have had ACA. The Republicans still would have found something to campaign on, would have taken over the congress, and we'd still be without it today. Instead, we have a piece of progressive legislation, however imperfect it might be, that millions of voters have used and insist on keeping, and will threaten to vote against Republicans if they take it away.

I used to believe that Bernie was a curmudgeon, but the more I've read about him, the more convinced I am that he's not just an activist but also a good, pragmatic legislator. Even so, I think some of his ideas, like UHC and free college, are just not going to sell well in certain parts of the country - that's one problem. I'm also less confident that Bernie is prepared for managing American foreign policy. He hardly ever talked about it in 2016, yet he wanted everyone to take him seriously as a presidential candidate, which struck me as odd to say the least.
  #15  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:15 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
(2) Alienates rather than might unify half the country. Check.
While your other criticisms are fair, this one really isn't. We could run Mitt Romney with a D in front of his name and he'd still "alienate half the country" - not because he's a liberal, but because he's a democrat. What, you think even the most milquetoast centrist candidate won't get targeted by relentless bullshit smear campaigns that paint them as a literal satanist child rapist?

"Wow, BPC, that's a very specific example!"

Why thank you, BPC, I brought it up because it's literally already going on.

Maybe pizzagate is a low blow. Most people aren't big fans of this stupid conspiracy theory. You know what probably isn't a low blow? This shit. And this shit.

I will beat this drum until I'm blue in the face, but when we're talking about "electability", we shouldn't be looking to the center, as the center basically doesn't exist any more. The "swing voter" is largely a political artifact that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are quite a few million voters who stay home because they're jaded and feel the system offers them nothing - a "radical" (read: someone willing to implement things most modern countries already have) will invigorate them and give them something to hope for. Biden will not.

This may be a good time to drop this Slate article, talking about exactly such people: "The Non-White Working Class".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-17-2019 at 06:16 AM.
  #16  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:30 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,840
While I support Bernie's policies, I just don't feel like being berated for 4-8 years by cranky old man who looks like he's yelling at the orchestra.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #17  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:37 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,350
I don't support Sanders because he hasn't convinced me of his ability to run an administration, pass a legislative agenda and get elected in the first place. Supporting him isn't my job but convincing me is his job. So far, he's not doing a great job with me or most other Democrats, to look at recent polling. Nonsense like "you're not a real liberal" or "blah blah cuck" probably isn't going to do much to help so you should probably spend that energy telling Sanders to up his game and figure out where his disconnect is.

Last edited by Jophiel; 06-17-2019 at 06:37 AM.
  #18  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:56 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
First, the caveat: if Sanders wins the nomination, I will almost certainly vote for him over Trump (and to be clear, the circumstances under which I'd vote for Trump are so extreme that, should they come to pass, democracy is pretty much fucked anyway).

However, while I agree with many of Sanders' positions, there are several reasons why I would prefer the Democratic nominee to be someone else, some of which were suspiciously excluded in the OP but I'm going to mention anyway. In no particular order:

1) Party. He's not a Democrat. I'm all for a 'big tent' but I don't think it unreasonable to ask the person running for the nomination of a political party to be a member of that political party, and Sanders refuses to do so while still trying to win that position. It's not a good message and Sanders hasn't addressed it in any way that didn't come across as wanting to have his cake and eat it too. That said, I'm not a Democrat either - but then I'm not running for office under their banner.

2) Age. For the same reason that I'd rather Biden and Warren weren't running, I would prefer a younger candidate who doesn't pose a health risk and is at least somewhat more connected to the concerns and values of post-Boomer generations.

3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc", and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers. I've heard the argument that the "socialist" thing is already baked into Bernie's numbers but it really isn't; the GOP haven't even begun to unleash their smear machine on him. And it doesn't matter that most people would agree with his specific policies; most people also would have agreed with Clinton's policies but never even considered them because it was all about the emotive narratives, as all elections are. Policies don't really win elections, alas.

4) His base. The "Bernie Bro" contingent (by which I mean the irrationally rabid core of his base) remind me of Ron Paui's supporters - they are hardcore True Believers who spent the 2016 fucking things up while demanding that everyone bow down to Saint Bernie and claiming that the whole country were really behind them if only the DNC would let them show it and then petulantly whining about how everyone was being so mean and unfair. This was not Sanders' fault, although his efforts to mitigate their effects were tepid at best, but nonetheless they're already out in force and likely to fuck things up again. Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.

5) Effectiveness. Sanders is a power in Congress. I think he (and Warren as well) could be far more effective at advancing their respective agendas in their current positions than they could from the White House. If he's about the agenda rather than personal glory, he should strategically support someone else and force his supporters to do the same. But he and they won't.

6) Effectiveness, Part 2: Were he to be elected, I am not convinced that Sanders could even get the Democrats in Congress to support him, let alone being able to pry some support out of Republicans. He's a firebrand speaker and this appeals to certain people (see #4 above) but his prior interaction with the DNC suggests that he's not the best at doing what needs to be done to achieve his goals, preferring instead to rail ineffectively against those who oppose him. We already know what it's like to have a president like that, and it ain't good.

That's probably enough for now. I'm sure I'll think of a few more, probably right after I post this.
  #19  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:59 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,231
Y'know how on Facebook your aunt Mildred posts all these things that say "I bet this won't even get one like!" As if I am being shamed and bullied into liking the thing? This type of behavior always makes me go, "Nah, you be you, and I'll be me."

Well, I have the same reaction about the Cult of Bernie. He may have great ideas, but for me it gets lost in the pushy noise of his acolytes constantly harping on how the DNC robbed him last time, etc.

If he ends up as the nominee I will support him, but man, I'd like to see the cult dial back the wounded fervor.
  #20  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:00 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
ignoring the fact every delegate appointed by the DNC voted for hillary, while every non appointed delegate voted Sanders
Wait... what??

Are you defining "appointed" as to include not just the Superdelegates but also those elected delegates who happened to come from among the established officials?

Last edited by JRDelirious; 06-17-2019 at 07:02 AM.
  #21  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:05 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,499
I'd vote for a pet rock over Trump in the general, but I don't think he's our best bet to beat that asshole.

UHC? Great. How?
Free college? Great. How? It also concerns me that the quality of a higher education might go down. Let's start with supplementing trade school tuition and see how that goes.

And it was years ago, but I read in the Rolling Stone that Bernie wants to get rid of inheritance. The monies you have when you die get reverted (or taxed in such a way) that the government ends up with most if not all of it. I suppose that would help pay for UHC, or college, but just doesn't seem quite right.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #22  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:08 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
First, the caveat: if Sanders wins the nomination, I will almost certainly vote for him over Trump (and to be clear, the circumstances under which I'd vote for Trump are so extreme that, should they come to pass, democracy is pretty much fucked anyway).

However, while I agree with many of Sanders' positions, there are several reasons why I would prefer the Democratic nominee to be someone else, some of which were suspiciously excluded in the OP but I'm going to mention anyway. In no particular order:

1) Party. He's not a Democrat. I'm all for a 'big tent' but I don't think it unreasonable to ask the person running for the nomination of a political party to be a member of that political party, and Sanders refuses to do so while still trying to win that position. It's not a good message and Sanders hasn't addressed it in any way that didn't come across as wanting to have his cake and eat it too. That said, I'm not a Democrat either - but then I'm not running for office under their banner.

2) Age. For the same reason that I'd rather Biden and Warren weren't running, I would prefer a younger candidate who doesn't pose a health risk and is at least somewhat more connected to the concerns and values of post-Boomer generations.

3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc", and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers. I've heard the argument that the "socialist" thing is already baked into Bernie's numbers but it really isn't; the GOP haven't even begun to unleash their smear machine on him. And it doesn't matter that most people would agree with his specific policies; most people also would have agreed with Clinton's policies but never even considered them because it was all about the emotive narratives, as all elections are. Policies don't really win elections, alas.

4) His base. The "Bernie Bro" contingent (by which I mean the irrationally rabid core of his base) remind me of Ron Paui's supporters - they are hardcore True Believers who spent the 2016 fucking things up while demanding that everyone bow down to Saint Bernie and claiming that the whole country were really behind them if only the DNC would let them show it and then petulantly whining about how everyone was being so mean and unfair. This was not Sanders' fault, although his efforts to mitigate their effects were tepid at best, but nonetheless they're already out in force and likely to fuck things up again. Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.

5) Effectiveness. Sanders is a power in Congress. I think he (and Warren as well) could be far more effective at advancing their respective agendas in their current positions than they could from the White House. If he's about the agenda rather than personal glory, he should strategically support someone else and force his supporters to do the same. But he and they won't.

6) Effectiveness, Part 2: Were he to be elected, I am not convinced that Sanders could even get the Democrats in Congress to support him, let alone being able to pry some support out of Republicans. He's a firebrand speaker and this appeals to certain people (see #4 above) but his prior interaction with the DNC suggests that he's not the best at doing what needs to be done to achieve his goals, preferring instead to rail ineffectively against those who oppose him. We already know what it's like to have a president like that, and it ain't good.

That's probably enough for now. I'm sure I'll think of a few more, probably right after I post this.
Requoted, in its entirety, for emphasis. I agree with all of these points, and am too tired to write them out myself.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #23  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:10 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
First, the caveat: if Sanders wins the nomination, I will almost certainly vote for him over Trump (and to be clear, the circumstances under which I'd vote for Trump are so extreme that, should they come to pass, democracy is pretty much fucked anyway).

However, while I agree with many of Sanders' positions, there are several reasons why I would prefer the Democratic nominee to be someone else, some of which were suspiciously excluded in the OP but I'm going to mention anyway. In no particular order:

1) Party. He's not a Democrat. I'm all for a 'big tent' but I don't think it unreasonable to ask the person running for the nomination of a political party to be a member of that political party, and Sanders refuses to do so while still trying to win that position. It's not a good message and Sanders hasn't addressed it in any way that didn't come across as wanting to have his cake and eat it too. That said, I'm not a Democrat either - but then I'm not running for office under their banner.

2) Age. For the same reason that I'd rather Biden and Warren weren't running, I would prefer a younger candidate who doesn't pose a health risk and is at least somewhat more connected to the concerns and values of post-Boomer generations.

3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc", and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers. I've heard the argument that the "socialist" thing is already baked into Bernie's numbers but it really isn't; the GOP haven't even begun to unleash their smear machine on him. And it doesn't matter that most people would agree with his specific policies; most people also would have agreed with Clinton's policies but never even considered them because it was all about the emotive narratives, as all elections are. Policies don't really win elections, alas.

4) His base. The "Bernie Bro" contingent (by which I mean the irrationally rabid core of his base) remind me of Ron Paui's supporters - they are hardcore True Believers who spent the 2016 fucking things up while demanding that everyone bow down to Saint Bernie and claiming that the whole country were really behind them if only the DNC would let them show it and then petulantly whining about how everyone was being so mean and unfair. This was not Sanders' fault, although his efforts to mitigate their effects were tepid at best, but nonetheless they're already out in force and likely to fuck things up again. Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.

5) Effectiveness. Sanders is a power in Congress. I think he (and Warren as well) could be far more effective at advancing their respective agendas in their current positions than they could from the White House. If he's about the agenda rather than personal glory, he should strategically support someone else and force his supporters to do the same. But he and they won't.

6) Effectiveness, Part 2: Were he to be elected, I am not convinced that Sanders could even get the Democrats in Congress to support him, let alone being able to pry some support out of Republicans. He's a firebrand speaker and this appeals to certain people (see #4 above) but his prior interaction with the DNC suggests that he's not the best at doing what needs to be done to achieve his goals, preferring instead to rail ineffectively against those who oppose him. We already know what it's like to have a president like that, and it ain't good.

That's probably enough for now. I'm sure I'll think of a few more, probably right after I post this.
Stand in the batter's box, admire the shot into the upper deck, flip the bat, and round the bases. This post is a towering home run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdsVO7HaJg

Nice post.

Last edited by asahi; 06-17-2019 at 07:12 AM.
  #24  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:12 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
Yay me! Thanks, guys.
  #25  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc"
I mean, not to be a dick or repeat myself, but... They're gonna do that no matter what.
Thanks to the universities’ leftist indoctrination of two generations of Americans, and thanks to Bernie Sanders, the Democratic party is now in all but name a socialist party. In fact, it is actually to the left of many European socialist parties.

For example, if Clinton wins, the government will now tell companies how much they must pay employees: “If you believe that companies should share profits with their workers, not paid executive bonuses, join us,” she brazenly announced.
And oh look...
Vice President Mike Pence says in a CNBC interview that Joe Biden is “advocating a socialist agenda” along with other Democratic candidates vying to take on President Trump.
The republican party will attack what the democrats do as "socialism" no matter what. They did it to Clinton (a centrist capitalist), they're doing it to Joe Biden (an even more centrist capitalist who has denounced socialism in strong terms), why should it matter that Sanders can then turn around and say, for example, "You call everything good the government could to socialism to scare people, so I'll wear that label with pride"?

Quote:
, and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers.
For a non-trivial percentage of the country, the previous democratic nominee and current democratic forerunner were seen as atheist child-molesting lepers. Okay, the lepers part is news to me, but y'know what most of those people who hate socialism have in common? They're republicans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/...apitalism.aspx

Y'know, the same demographic where a majority stake didn't think Obama was from the US. 2/3rds either think he wasn't or "aren't sure". These are not the people we need to spend a whole lot of time appealing to.

Again, most of these are fair criticisms, but nine times out of ten, when people worry about what the republicans could throw at Sanders, they're already throwing it at current democrats.
  #26  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:17 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,505
I would vote for a fresh steaming pile of dog poop if it had a D after it in order to vote against Herr Donald. However, I would hold my nose just as much to vote for Bernie. For one thing, he's too damn old and looks it. For another, he isn't a Democrat. Why should the party nominate an outsider? He's a self-described socialist, which is fine by me but to a great many voters it's a third rail and the kiss of death. We're going to see ads with hammers and sickles over his face should he win the nomination. Finally, his supporters piss the fuck off of me. They're one of the reasons Hillary lost. "Boo-hoo. My candidate got fewer votes in the primaries and didn't get the nomination. I think I'll stay home and let the sociopath win the presidency." If that's their attitude, fuck them and the horses they rode in on. The Berniebots are every bit as delusional as the MAGAbots.
  #27  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:20 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,625
They'll throw the same amount at any Democrat, but more of it will stick on Sanders.
  #28  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:25 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I mean, not to be a dick or repeat myself, but... They're gonna do that no matter what
I don't know why you'd think I'd think you were being a "dick" for saying that. It's a fair point.

It's true that Republicans will lie about what the Democrats stand for. It is also true, however, that in Sanders' case they have a benefit of him self-identifying as "socialist". And while you and I know the difference between socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy, most Americans don't know or, really, care. But they will care about someone who is willing to stamp him- or herself with that label, and that difference will cost votes.
  #29  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:39 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,908
Gyrate, it's a perverse twist on "I know he isn't, I want to make him have to deny it". The idea being that the street-level voter will find it suspicious that someone doesn't deny it. Then again people voted for Trump and with anything he's accused of he will admit, deny, or pretend to not know what you're talking about within 5 minutes of the same conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.
One would have thought that long ago we had busted up good and hard the idea that there would always be an obvious candidate "whose turn it is". It's never your turn, nobody deserves it, nobody has earned it until they earn it. (And dear Sec. Clinton: you failed twice after starting as the frontrunner. Own it.)


I said earlier before they both dove in that I would have preferred BOTH Sanders and Biden to ride into the sunset as Elder Statesmen reminding the party of what went right or wrong in the past, being voices to hit at Trump from left and center, and mentoring the new generation of the leftist and centrist wings respectively. But instead they are being put forth as front runners. We'll see how that turns out, I know already I'm against Trump no matter what, no matter who.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 06-17-2019 at 07:40 AM.
  #30  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:40 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Yay me! Thanks, guys.
I'll pile on with the good post.

Except that I do not believe Sanders is a power in Congress. He is a power outside of Congress. His accomplishments are meager, and I don't think anyone in either party particularly cares to work with Sanders. He's the top Dem on the Budget Committee, and even as a low-level DC insider, I've never heard of him involved in any significant talks on any budget related matter, from tax reform to the debt limit to the sequestration cuts that are coming up in a handful of months.

I would add that he did move big parts of the Democratic Party to the left, but now as I look out at the Democratic field, I see two dozen candidates whose position on things are within a fairly modest band (except for Gravel). Better to elect someone in the general policy window who also hasn't been collecting Social Security for two decades and has more political skills to get things done.
  #31  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:46 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It's true that Republicans will lie about what the Democrats stand for. It is also true, however, that in Sanders' case they have a benefit of him self-identifying as "socialist". And while you and I know the difference between socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy, most Americans don't know or, really, care. But they will care about someone who is willing to stamp him- or herself with that label, and that difference will cost votes.
I think I'm kind of biased because I think "socialism" is both good and necessary, and also carry a deep, burning hatred for a solid half of the American electorate. But I'd like to think that voters who actually care about what a candidate stands for, rather than a pithy soundbite, will be able to see past the label to realize that what Sanders is calling for is more or less just "what most modern nations have". And those who can't or won't... Well, what's the difference for them between "my go-to news sources and noted straight-talker and president Donald Trump call Biden a commie" and "Sanders calls himself a commie"? They're not interested in the facts to begin with.

Again, I'm probably biased on this, but I just don't get it. Who are the people who are so caught up with the label over the substance who won't be swayed by a concerted propaganda campaign (which we can expect no matter who runs, because that's just how things are)? Like, are they just very particular kinds of brainless idiots, or what?
  #32  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:43 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I think I'm kind of biased because I think "socialism" is both good and necessary, and also carry a deep, burning hatred for a solid half of the American electorate. But I'd like to think that voters who actually care about what a candidate stands for, rather than a pithy soundbite, will be able to see past the label to realize that what Sanders is calling for is more or less just "what most modern nations have". And those who can't or won't... Well, what's the difference for them between "my go-to news sources and noted straight-talker and president Donald Trump call Biden a commie" and "Sanders calls himself a commie"? They're not interested in the facts to begin with.

Again, I'm probably biased on this, but I just don't get it. Who are the people who are so caught up with the label over the substance who won't be swayed by a concerted propaganda campaign (which we can expect no matter who runs, because that's just how things are)? Like, are they just very particular kinds of brainless idiots, or what?
Dammit, you. Stop making reasonable arguments.
  #33  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:46 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'll pile on with the good post.

Except that I do not believe Sanders is a power in Congress. He is a power outside of Congress. His accomplishments are meager, and I don't think anyone in either party particularly cares to work with Sanders. He's the top Dem on the Budget Committee, and even as a low-level DC insider, I've never heard of him involved in any significant talks on any budget related matter, from tax reform to the debt limit to the sequestration cuts that are coming up in a handful of months.
Which, if so, is an even bigger reason not to support Sanders.
  #34  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:15 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
I don't support Bernie Sanders because I think 90% of what he proposes is both unworkable and unlikely to be adopted into law by the Congress.

Presidents do three things: they conduct foreign policy, they choose Supreme Court justices (and other federal judges), and they bring in the department heads to run the Administration. I think that Sen. Sanders would be out of his depth with foreign policy, and I think his nominees for the Supreme Court would likely be much too liberal for my taste (I think the Court needs a couple good moderates to balance out the wings). The one thing I think he'd be likely to do is bring decent people in to run the government.

Finally, I am tired of old, "white" men carrying the torch for the political parties. It's hard for the Democratic Party to hold itself up as the champion of groups who are discriminated against if it goes back to running candidates from the old power structure (Joe Biden, I'm looking at you, too). The party needs to run someone who is younger and who can energize the party as a whole, not just the trend-loving youth who love to show up for Bernie because the things he says sound cool.
  #35  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:15 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Which, if so, is an even bigger reason not to support Sanders.
Pretty much. He's an ideas guy and can get people fired up about his ideas. However, I don't have any confidence in his ability to actually implement his ideas. I have even less confidence in his foreign policy acumen which I feel will be extremely important post-Trump.

I also agree with him not being a Democrat. Which is sort of amusing because people keep telling me about his "consistent ideals" yet he chose (twice now) to suddenly run as a Democrat for the sake of pure political convenience.

He does have an outsized number of truly obnoxious supporters which might not be his fault, per se, but it does make me a lot less interested to engage with his sphere of supporters or listen to them.

Like everyone else, I'll vote for a racoon in a hat should that be my Democratic choice opposing Trump. But I see no reason to give Sanders my primary support over the other 20-odd choices.
  #36  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:20 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,113
1. Call me ageist, but I am tired of this trend of 70-80 year old presidential candidates. We need young blood.

2. I get the impression that Sanders would welch on things like NATO commitments, but due to a misplaced sense of idealism. If Russia invaded Poland while Bernie was president, I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see Sanders pull a "war is never the right choice" card and bail out.
  #37  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Give me reasons why you would not support Sanders as president. ...
Condensing all of what has been said above to the most simple: because even assuming he could win I don't think he'd be a very good one (at best ineffective) and not as good as many other options running on the D side. Of course though I'd support him for president as the far superior option to Trump.

The question itself though is odd. The question in politics is not why not support, but why to support, why is this person the best possible of the choices we have. Of those running there are only a few who I do not see as likely better choices than him.

Barack Obama why do you prefer him over Warren?
  #38  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
2. I get the impression that Sanders would welch on things like NATO commitments, but due to a misplaced sense of idealism. If Russia invaded Poland while Bernie was president, I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see Sanders pull a "war is never the right choice" card and bail out.
While I realize "better than Trump" is a very low bar, I hardly think Sanders could possibly do worse. He's not exactly bullish on NATO, but "He'll welch on our commitments" seems kind of out there.
  #39  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:00 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
While I realize "better than Trump" is a very low bar, I hardly think Sanders could possibly do worse.
I'm hoping for someone leagues better in foreign policy than Trump though and Sanders doesn't really fit that bill.
  #40  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:04 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I don't support Bernie Sanders because I think 90% of what he proposes is both unworkable and unlikely to be adopted into law by the Congress.
.
this is my main problem with Sanders. And yes his fans certainly remind me of Ron Paul fans.
  #41  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:34 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'll pile on with the good post.

Except that I do not believe Sanders is a power in Congress. He is a power outside of Congress. His accomplishments are meager, and I don't think anyone in either party particularly cares to work with Sanders. He's the top Dem on the Budget Committee, and even as a low-level DC insider, I've never heard of him involved in any significant talks on any budget related matter, from tax reform to the debt limit to the sequestration cuts that are coming up in a handful of months.

I would add that he did move big parts of the Democratic Party to the left, but now as I look out at the Democratic field, I see two dozen candidates whose position on things are within a fairly modest band (except for Gravel). Better to elect someone in the general policy window who also hasn't been collecting Social Security for two decades and has more political skills to get things done.
I agree with this and find it interesting that a lot of these Sanders supporters tend to either completely ignore or blow up minor differences with Elizabeth Warren. I think they know that Warren has accomplished a good deal more and has detailed policy proposals for her positions while being (at least) 80% as progressive as Sanders.

She is a progressive. She's gotten things done in the Senate - a good reason is that she is able to work in the party in a way Sanders is not. So why would I back Sanders when I can back Warren instead?

Of course I was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008 and 2016, so I doubt Sanders supporters will listen to me anyways.
  #42  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:48 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Give me reasons why you would not support Sanders as president. His SS expansion bill seems pretty good to me, his M4A bill seems pretty good to me, and I agree with pretty much every position he has. Such as criminals having the right to vote, and in prison. Or such as people being automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. ... Any arguments about his viability as a democratic front runner I throw out the window..... I want to know specifics about what you don't support that bernie has proposed, and what other candidates propose that you believe is better. ....)
Sure, the Soc Sec expansion bill is fine, and needed, but it's not just his idea, in fact the current one was introduced by Rep. John Larson, D-Connecticut.

1. He's anti-nuke. And in favor of stopping global warming. Nuke power is one of the best ways to do that.

2. He hasnt produced his tax returns.

3. He won't call off his Bernie-bros, and that possibly put Trump into office. He must know they cheerfully spread rumors and propaganda about his dem opponents, yet he won't lift a finger to stop them.

4. He can't win the general election. The portfolio of nasty dirty trick the GOP has ready for him will make him the biggest loser since Dukakis.
  #43  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:59 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You're right, he's much worse. He wants to cut social security and medicare, hes pro-war by every stretch of the term, he's voted for things that are anti-gay and unconstitutional, was supported mass incarceration and before any centrists point out so did bernie, well bernie was an independent and only supported as a compromise to protect women. ...
He wants to cut social security and medicare= Cite?

The only thing that comes close is a bi-partisan idea to limit or halt payouts to the wealthy who don't need them. That's not 'cutting social security".

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...-should-k.aspx

Medicare?

https://www.newsweek.com/2020-candid...choice-1409332

hes pro-war by every stretch of the term= No he's not. In fact his much touted "support" of the Iraq war is false. he only voted for that resolution after the Shrub gave Joe his personal assurance that GWB wouldnt use it to invade.

Pretty much Everyone voted for that crime bill, even Bernie. No one knew the consequences at that time.

Your "facts' here sound a lot like what trump wants us to believe.
  #44  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:04 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
...
3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc", and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers. I've heard the argument that the "socialist" thing is already baked into Bernie's numbers but it really isn't; the GOP haven't even begun to unleash their smear machine on him. And it doesn't matter that most people would agree with his specific policies; most people also would have agreed with Clinton's policies but never even considered them because it was all about the emotive narratives, as all elections are. Policies don't really win elections, alas.

4) His base. The "Bernie Bro" contingent (by which I mean the irrationally rabid core of his base) remind me of Ron Paui's supporters - they are hardcore True Believers who spent the 2016 fucking things up while demanding that everyone bow down to Saint Bernie and claiming that the whole country were really behind them if only the DNC would let them show it and then petulantly whining about how everyone was being so mean and unfair. This was not Sanders' fault, although his efforts to mitigate their effects were tepid at best, but nonetheless they're already out in force and likely to fuck things up again. Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.
...
Not to mention "COMMUNISM, COMMUNISM,COMMUNISM..." Anyone that thinks the kremlin cant find a picture of Bernie at a Communist rally and cant fake up a communist party card in Bernies name is delusional. And a lot of Americans will beleive it.

Example in point= the Op with his GOP based attacks upon Biden right here in this thread. I expect more such attacks.

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-17-2019 at 11:07 AM.
  #45  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:05 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
First, the caveat: if Sanders wins the nomination, I will almost certainly vote for him over Trump (and to be clear, the circumstances under which I'd vote for Trump are so extreme that, should they come to pass, democracy is pretty much fucked anyway).

However, while I agree with many of Sanders' positions, there are several reasons why I would prefer the Democratic nominee to be someone else, some of which were suspiciously excluded in the OP but I'm going to mention anyway. In no particular order:

1) Party. He's not a Democrat. I'm all for a 'big tent' but I don't think it unreasonable to ask the person running for the nomination of a political party to be a member of that political party, and Sanders refuses to do so while still trying to win that position. It's not a good message and Sanders hasn't addressed it in any way that didn't come across as wanting to have his cake and eat it too. That said, I'm not a Democrat either - but then I'm not running for office under their banner.

2) Age. For the same reason that I'd rather Biden and Warren weren't running, I would prefer a younger candidate who doesn't pose a health risk and is at least somewhat more connected to the concerns and values of post-Boomer generations.

3) Electability. As I've said elsewhere, should Sanders be nominated, the Republican narrative for the remainder of the election season would be "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM etc", and for a large percentage of the country the undefined spectre of "socialism" is a greater evil than atheist child-molesting lepers. I've heard the argument that the "socialist" thing is already baked into Bernie's numbers but it really isn't; the GOP haven't even begun to unleash their smear machine on him. And it doesn't matter that most people would agree with his specific policies; most people also would have agreed with Clinton's policies but never even considered them because it was all about the emotive narratives, as all elections are. Policies don't really win elections, alas.

4) His base. The "Bernie Bro" contingent (by which I mean the irrationally rabid core of his base) remind me of Ron Paui's supporters - they are hardcore True Believers who spent the 2016 fucking things up while demanding that everyone bow down to Saint Bernie and claiming that the whole country were really behind them if only the DNC would let them show it and then petulantly whining about how everyone was being so mean and unfair. This was not Sanders' fault, although his efforts to mitigate their effects were tepid at best, but nonetheless they're already out in force and likely to fuck things up again. Also: you know that sense of entitlement that Sanders supporters repeatedly accused Clinton of, regarding the nomination? Here's a mirror, guys.

5) Effectiveness. Sanders is a power in Congress. I think he (and Warren as well) could be far more effective at advancing their respective agendas in their current positions than they could from the White House. If he's about the agenda rather than personal glory, he should strategically support someone else and force his supporters to do the same. But he and they won't.

6) Effectiveness, Part 2: Were he to be elected, I am not convinced that Sanders could even get the Democrats in Congress to support him, let alone being able to pry some support out of Republicans. He's a firebrand speaker and this appeals to certain people (see #4 above) but his prior interaction with the DNC suggests that he's not the best at doing what needs to be done to achieve his goals, preferring instead to rail ineffectively against those who oppose him. We already know what it's like to have a president like that, and it ain't good.

That's probably enough for now. I'm sure I'll think of a few more, probably right after I post this.
Another full post quote to show support, but especially important to me are #5 and #6. I simply do not think that Mr. Sanders has much chance of getting people to go along with his legislation. I simply don't see him as having that kind of political capital or the goodwill necessary when capital is lacking. I like many of his ideas, proposals, policies, etc. but I don't think he'd be a very effective president.
  #46  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:07 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
hes pro-war by every stretch of the term= No he's not. In fact his much touted "support" of the Iraq war is false. he only voted for that resolution after the Shrub gave Joe his personal assurance that GWB wouldnt use it to invade.
I think that Biden could legitimately be criticized as being a sucker for voting for that resolution, especially since his speeches made it clear that he didn't think an unprovoked war was a very good idea. IIRC, Biden attempted to offer amendments to make the war resolution less of a blank check; but he failed and voted for it anyway. Again, that's more like the actions of a sucker than a warmonger.

And if he is such a warmonger, it's awfully hard to explain why he advised Obama not to conduct the Osama bin Laden raid. Again, he can be criticized for getting it wrong, but it isn't fair to say that "no raid to get the 9/11 terrorist" is the position of a crazy guy with his finger on the button.
  #47  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
... I'm not going to have this debate if you want to bring up "he lost to hillary" while ignoring the fact every delegate appointed by the DNC voted for hillary, while every non appointed delegate voted Sanders.....The democratic party if it wants to survive and not get eaten alive, needs to embrace the likes of Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ro Khanna, etc... ....
every delegate appointed by the DNC voted for hillary+ ??

while every non appointed delegate voted Sanders= Not even close,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D...tial_primaries

Clinton won 2205 delegates, Sanders won 1846. There were only 712 Superdelegates and they made no difference at all in the nominations process in 2016. Note that 42 of them voted for Bernie. Generally they all vote for whichever candidate has won in the primaries. Just to make the record clear- 16,847,084
(55.20%) of the popular vote was for Clinton, while only 13,168,222
(43.14%) was for Sanders. The Superdelegates made no difference.

In actuality, Sanders only did was well as he did due to the totally UN-Democratic caucuses.

The old "Bernie was robbed" pops up again.
  #48  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:28 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
In fact, the Op is a perfect example of why i dont support Bernie.

Coming up with that totally and repeatedly disproved canard "He wuz robbed", and spreading GOP propaganda to hurt leading Democratic candidates. .

OP, want to know why we dont support Bernie? Hold up a mirror. You are why.
  #49  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:42 AM
MeanJoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,313
I really don't think I could say it better than Gyrate did. I agree with every one of the points listed. I would only add the following - generally speaking his two largest policy positions of Medicare for All and free college are items I do not support. I am for UHC and I am for improving the ACA but I am not a fan of Bernie's Medicare 4 All proposition. I think there is some alignment on this general issue of health care reform between Democrats and Progressives and my own desires, overall I am not happy with his specific solution. I am in 100% complete disagreement on the free college position. I disagree with the basic premise. I believe the high costs of college is a real problem but I don't agree that making it free is the appropriate nor fiscally responsible response. I believe the money needed for this is better spent on other issues like health care, affordable housing, paying off the national debt, infrastructure, and a whole host of other "bigger problems" we have a country right now. Interest free student loans? Yes! Loan forgiveness with civic volunteering? Yes! Investment in trade-schools and better financial support? Yes! Free college tuition? No.
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #50  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:49 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,534
Let's take a close look at Bernie's record.

Notice the first chart, which ranks both his ideology and his "leadership." He is the farthest left on the ideology scale of anyone in the senate, but ranks near the bottom in leadership.

Now let's look at his record in getting legislation through Congress. In all his time in the Senate, he's sponsored seven bills that passed Congress. Two of them were to rename post offices in his home state of Vermont, one of them was to designate March 4, 1991 as Vermont Bicentennial Day, and one of them was the probably important but not exactly earth-shattering Granting the consent of Congress to the Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact of March 1996.

What has Bernie Sanders done to deserve your support?

I said this in another thread. Bernie is a prophet, not a Messiah. Let him finish out his career in the Senate, fighting the good fight, and using his seniority to get a few tweaks into legislation that someone else is driving.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017