That’s your personal view on Sanders running to get his issues out there and that’s probably true, but it isn’t something created by the Clinton campaign to get Sanders to explain in greater detail how he’s going to get his issues put in practice. It’s something that people are going to want to know.
I want to reply to this thoughtfully but I have to go to work now. I appreciate your opinion and where you’re coming from but I’d like to offer my perspective. To be continued later.
I read that article and, while I think there might be a bit of political motivation involved, I tend to agree overall. I have a problem with one point in particular: the painting of alternative medicine as utter quackery. There are definitely concepts that are used which are borne out by the scientific community, i.e. the effect of positive mental outlook on general health and that psychosomatic illnesses do exist. I also don’t have a problem with funding research into promising avenues in what is termed ‘alternative medicine.’ How else is it supposed to be proven, one way or the other?
I agree that there are definitely false practitioners, maybe even a lot of them. But I prefer to keep options open rather than making blanket statements that the entire ‘field’ is worthless.
Having said that, I’m not well-informed enough on Bernie’s current beliefs on this issue to be able to judge. Yes, I’ve seen his early pulp articles, but there’s a world of difference between age 28 and age 74.
But this–the subject of that part of the *Daily News *interview, breaking up the banks–is at the very foundation of Sanders’ message…isn’t it? That Wall Street has been harming the US economy by increasing income inequality, and must be stopped from continuing such harm?
So why didn’t he have a correct, specific answer to offer?
From the interview:
If Sanders is the candidate, I will vote for him.
This, despite two major forebodings: first, a reasonable surmise that he will get nothing accomplished due to his poor track record on, well, getting things accomplished (in his 26 years in Congress, he has gotten passed only three bills he’s authored–and two of them were re-namings of post offices). Second: under a Sanders Presidency, I believe, there will be record GOP turnout for the 2018 midterms, resulting in a massive increase in GOP representation in both houses of Congress. (If Clinton become President there would likely be Democratic losses in Congress in 2018, too, as it has become a pattern in US politics for the President’s party to lose seats. But I believe the losses would be worse under Sanders.)
But overriding all that is the simple fact that if Sanders is President, there will be no Supreme Court nominations of right-wingers.
It may be that no one Sanders nominates could be confirmed. But at least we can be sure that no right-winger would be confirmed (because Sanders, like Clinton, would never nominate a right-winger).
For me, nothing outweighs the importance of Supreme Court nominations.
Aside from that: there’s something in the wording of “What would it take for you to say no to a D candidate?” that sounds to me like the attitude all too common among certain contingents of Sanders supporters: the concept that the Pure and Noble thing is to refrain from voting.
Regardless of whether or not the poster was voicing that view, I have to say that the view itself is not respectable. That view is not the viewpoint of an adult. (Again, I’m taking no position on the question of whether that particular poster actually holds the opinion that the Pure and Noble thing is to refrain from voting.)
You know what they call alternative medicine once it has been proven to work? Medicine.
Sanders’ following ain’t no Bambi and Trump’s ain’t no Godzilla.
I hate to utter this cliché, but: did you read the OP? Because that’s not what I was saying.
I screwed up my calculation. It’s much higher than 10%. The attack ads would be devistating and wouldn’t even have to be inaccurate. Though they would be.
I’m not sure what you’re going on about. My claims about Clinton’s disproportionate support among minorities are based upon my reading of the 538 website. If that helps. http://fivethirtyeight.com/
Frankly, I support your reasoning. I want Sanders to lose, but I also want him to move the Overton window. That means some have to vote for him. This primary is going better than I have the right to hope for.
The problem is Sanders and the Progressive Caucus have been around for decades. Ideally, they would have a well vetted platform up and running. And they really don’t. No problem: campaigns are in large part aspirational. But it does point to a modest weakness within the US hard left. (It’s much more acute in the realm of foreign policy IMHO. The peace movement offers trivial push-back against the national security establishment among policy wonks as I understand it.)
The Democrats consistently win electoral majorities, but their supporters are concentrated in urban areas. The biggest challenge as I see it is persuading rural areas to vote Democratic, neurotypical and pro-compromise, the last which forms the basis of our democratic system and indeed all democratic systems.
I’m OK with his stated intent to break up the big banks. Beats all the nothing we get from the other candidates on that issue.
He will at least TRY to get something done, and perhaps in trying he will succeed here and there. Hillary will not even try.
How much has he tried until now?
His site directly references past legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored along the lines cited.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982, by an agreed consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that had provided local telephone service in the United States and Canada up until that point.[1] This effectively took the monopoly that was the Bell System and split it into entirely separate companies that would continue to provide telephone service.
[/QUOTE]
OMG! Zombie Teddy Roosevelt!
I bet even a zombie Roosevelt understands more about antitrust law and why it doesn’t apply to these banks than this comment indicates.
OK, you’re probably thinking of the breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. But that was in 1911, under President Taft, and was also an antitrust case.
As the lawyers say, objection on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent.
Any fool can file a bill. What’s he actually done to try to enact any of it?
Here’s a list of legislation Bernie has worked to pass. it’s quite long, considering that the Republicans have controlled one or both houses of Congress for most of his time there. It’s from Alternet but there are links to all the bills.
You make Sanders sound like Donald Trump. Sanders has a long history of getting bills passed in the teeth of opposition, as I pointed out in my previous post.
So glad you know Hillary that well. When are you having her over for dinner next?
Bernie has been a Rep from 1991 to 2006 and a Senator since then. During that time the Dems controlled the House for 8 years and the Senate for 8 years. What bills did Sanders get passed during those years? It’s a simple question.
Simple answer: read my response to Elvis1Lives, above.
Only a slight derailment…
I swear I want to take the word ‘momentum’ out back behind the woodshed and thrash it with a stick.