You left out all the peace and prosperity stuff.
How’d that go?
My current thoughts on Sanders and some of his supporters is written here. I’d just be copying and pasting the whole thing, so I’ll just link it.
If any of us thought you’d honestly care about any of the 354 bills he has introduced, the thousands of amendments he’s introduced to other people’s bills or any of the work he’s done in the numerous committees he sits and has sat on, we might bother posting any of it for you. But we’ve played this game with you before so we know how it goes: We post an accomplishment; you dismiss it as trivial.
Bernie Sanders has been a tireless champion for the poor, the middle class, African Americans, seniors, and veterans for his entire legislative career. Consistently. Without fail. Against powerful monied interests that don’t care about those groups. And he’s done so well at it that his constituents in Vermont have reelected him every single election. He’s shown an unwavering commitment to fighting until he could get someone’s attention.
He has our attention now. He’s been right all along. And we are worse off for not having listened more carefully sooner. But it isn’t too late to repair the damage if we stick together as citizens and demand that this country be returned to one that is of the people, by the people and for the people instead of of the special interests, by the lobbyists and for the corporations.
You can either join the revolution or you can sit on the sidelines and wave while we get things done without you. But trust us, things are about to change in a big, big way.
So, a bunch of bills and speeches with no actual results other than his re-election. You could have just said so.
Time to engage with the real world, folks.Says one of his most ardent fanboys:
But the nub of it all:
Bolding in original. Quoting Nate Cohn in the NYT:
You can go on helping the Republicans take back the White House if you want, but don’t expect not to get severely criticized for it.
You don’t GET to criticize me here, so KNOCK IT OFF.
Elvis, you really don’t get to criticize other posters here. Don’t make it personal.
If you can’t do that, I encourage you to rethink what you’re doing here.
And now I can’t get this surprisingly apt song outa my head:
I aint interested in no revolution. What I want are solutions.
I don’t want to destroy Wall Street. Or man the barricades of Les Miz in a noble and fruitless waste.
Very seriously, revolutions are messy things that rarely result in more than a few losing their heads before we just get fooled again. If that. Our system is flawed, no question, but yeah, you man the barricades, you have faith in yourselves, and do not be afraid, give them a screwing they will not forget, dogs will bark, fleas will bite.
Yup, that’ll be me, waving. Along with everyone else you are just shocked are not taking up arms and joining you on the barricades.
Voting to actually get things done that really end up doing something about the hollowing out of the middle class and the unrealistic burden of educational costs and debt. Not imagining what would happen if we had a revolution, off with the bankers’ heads, and suddenly did not have to negotiate and compromise with the rest of this country’s citizens.
If somehow Sanders ended up being the nominee I’d vote for him but if he managed to win (improbably) less good would actually be achieved during his swing at bat than would be if Clinton was at the helm.
Yeah, sure, as if. So, all those Occupy protesters and “direct action” types, they’re for Citizens United in your world?
This. This. A thousand times this.
Peace owed to Reagan and Gorbachev, which Clinton was smart enough not to undermine. Half point.
A transient prosperity owed mostly to factors before Clinton, such as the successful exploitation of offshore oil fields (don’t start, adaher, I’m still a conservationist, and the future now is still wind and solar) and the boom in home computing. And a prosperity undermined hard by the 1) end of Glass-Steagall (1999) and the cap on funded medical resident training due to the mythic threat of a physician “glut” (1997). So, that’s how that went.
Well, much of his time in the House was during the wild and crazy Gingrich and Hastert/DeLay years, when the Democrats were in the minority (so much for Clintons having coattails) and the crooks were in charge. He got a lot of amendments passed, and then they’d get gutted in reconciliation. To claim that’s a strike against him is odd.
Ah, I see, ElvisL1ves thinks that one’s fitness for the Presidency is determined by factors external to oneself. OK, I’ve probably made arguments like that before, I admit. I think it was in '08, when I said HRC was too hated and a younger, centrist Democrat was a safer bet for the party.
I was wrong, by the way: The GOP had no hope in that election and the Democrats could not lose–and the centrist kid was both despised within his own party for jumping the line and unfairly caricatured by the other side as a “Black Caesar.”
So, yeah external matters do matter–the ones that come into play once in office.
Sanders will have a big disadvantage once in office: He’s an ideologue, not a party loyalist. People who like him as a Senator may resent him and then hate him as a President.
Adding to the progressive share of Congress is the most important thing for the next election. If HRC has the coattails, she may be the best candidate. If those coattails are Dick Nixon Republicans in pantsuits, or if they end up out on their butts in two years, that may still be less than enough.
And I come back to this. The race that matters is the race for Congress. The Presidency will never be “enough.” You cannot fix the problems of decades of deep legislative dysfunction in just a few years just by nominating judges.
With all the love for ZebraShaSha’s post, did anyone notice that we already enjoy nearly the highest standard of living in the world? Thinking that we’d be richer if we adopted policies that even when working well don’t generate as much wealth as our system makes no sense. It’s the lack of “individualist assholes” that keeps most European nations poor. And if we didn’t subsidize their defense needs, their health care needs, and buy their oil(since we won’t drill for our own) even the richer ones would be a lot poorer.
Which is really why I want to reform to some sort of proportional system, but good luck with that.
Literally all but one of those claims are untrue.
Poor European nations aren’t helped by “assholes.” Berlusconi and Ceaușescu were two varieties of particularly out-for-themselves European “assholes,” and they didn’t make their countries rich. I don’t know enough about Lukashenko to say if he’s an asshole or just a benign dictator or what, but Belarus is poor for reasons beyond assholishness. Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark are almost antitheses of individualist assholishness–to the point that I, an admittedly somewhat individualist asshole American of Swedish descent, would find Sweden annoying and Denmark weirdly restrictive; and yet, they are economically rather comfortable. (And if I did move to Denmark, I could smuggle in Pepto-Bismol.)
Social insurance and high VATs subsidize their healthcare needs.
Or are you listening to Pfizer lobbyists again? There’s much, much more to health care than pharmaceutical development; and most of the money Yanks pay for drugs, and much of the research money Yanks pay for Big Pharma to do is incidental to outcomes. Yes, really! Look at how many Prozac and Viagra knockoffs there are! Those are generally working from the same original, public domain research, with tweaks to be able to patent a competing choice/lifestyle drug as a moneymaker. (There are legitimate therapeutic uses to both, of course; but the business model doesn’t rely on those.)
Most of Europe import petroleum and natural gas. Not every nation has a Texas. Norway and Scotland have the North Sea fields, but that is far from typical. It’s safe to assume that the USA both has and exploits far more oil, gas, and even coal every year than the median EU state even has in total reserves.
Now, I suppose I would be happy to end NATO and let Europe build their own navy; not because I wish to abandon our allies to potential future Russian, German, or French expansionism; but for entirely domestic political reasons: I am sick of the USA using our status as the ersatz “warrior slave” caste of Europe as an excuse not to have a functional welfare state.
As always, you make the point I was trying to make, by missing my point entirely.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
…
We have this romantic notion of America being a spirited democracy full of lively debate and a vast diversity of opinion, a raucous cacophony of voices from all walks of life, with everyone getting a seat at the table. All falsehoods: the ruling class in America is rich, male, Christian, and white, and they govern within a narrow set of ideas that align closely with their personal interests.
But, this myth of having a spirited debate must persist to keep the oligarchy in power. Convince people they think they can make a difference, but give them only two options, both of which benefit you and your friends.
…
Anyway, when you (proverbial you) start having an actual discussion of issues, with facts and common sense, posters like yourself (and Republicans, and most Democrats) obfuscate, move the goal posts, ignore the stuff you can’t hand-wave away, all to obscure the uncomfortable truth that our democracy isn’t very democratic and we don’t get very many choices in the direction the country goes.
My post was full of examples you can’t account for, or explain away, or even challenge. So you ignored it, best you could, and now you try to change it into a vague discussion on standards of living. Take a discussion of facts, change it into a discussion on a difference of opinion.
Sorry, not interested.
Not necessarily responding to you, but this is as good of a place as any: Bernie Sanders agrees with the American people on the following issues:
Wealth Distribution
Ending Citizens United
Raising minimum wage
Publically funded campaigns
Abortion rights
Global Warming
Taking action to end global warming
Affordability of higher education
Gun control
NSA surveillance
Gay marriage
And then some. People making him out to be some insane leftist socialist nutter are missing the point that he’s actually quite populist: He agrees with the majority of Americans on the majority of things.
How does Hillary fare? How about Republicans? And if the answer is that they don’t align with the American people like Bernie does, why are they getting elected? Why are they in charge? Isn’t this a democracy, shouldn’t we be electing people who we agree with, on policy?
Here’s an amazing article on the stuff Bernie achieved as mayor.
When he was elected, people were terrified that a communist took over. But everything socialist he did – which was seen as far-left radical at the time – is now so common place in municipal governments that people don’t even notice.
Speaking as a Republican, when I contemplate the nomination of Bernie Sanders for POTUS, I agree with Br’er Rabbit -
Regards,
Shodan
Just *responding *to some. :dubious:
May I see the quote where you think I’m criticizing the person, not the posts, please?