Exactly. Sanders is like Ron Paul for liberals.
He is not. But with the virulent anti-Semitism infecting the left, Rehm will not be the only liberal wingnut “just asking questions”.
Say what?
Riiiight.
Those types of leftists (which really are mostly annoying college SJW tumblrista types or unreconstructed Marxists) are both very small in number and hate virtually every other mainstream candidate more-especially the “neoliberal warmonger corporate whore” Hillary Clinton.
:rolleyes: This wouldn’t have anything to do with Israel, would it?
And they are also virulently anti-Black, anti-Hispanic, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-science, and anti-sane.
Agreed. George W. Bush filled that role quite nicely.
That’s Sanders’ point exactly: Everyone else thinks there’s a link, and so point to a proliferation of brands as evidence of prosperity, even though it doesn’t actually decrease childhood poverty.
Well, yes. See the Left has always had this endearing habit of siding with the downtrodden underdogs. For millennium the Jewish people were downtrodden underdogs. For decades Israel was a downtrodden underdog. But now the Palestinians are downtrodden underdogs. So the Left now naturally sides with the Palestinians vs Israel. Some confuse that with being Anti-Semitic. And, honestly some of the Left are so adamant in their zealotry in favor of the Palestinians, that they support the PLO- which is Anti-Semitic.
It’s weird.
We jigger the economy and our laws to promote business interests because we measure our success and the strength of our economy in terms of how well businesses are doing.
Sanders is arguing that our economy and laws should be arranged for the benefit of our most vulnerable citizens and that our economic success should be measured by how well we provide for them.
If 45% of our population is living below the poverty line, then our economy is not strong and we have nothing to brag about, no matter how long the deodorant aisle is, is what Bernie’s trying to say.
[QUOTE=Merneith]
Sanders is arguing that our economy and laws should be arranged for the benefit of our most vulnerable citizens and that our economic success should be measured by how well we provide for them.
[/QUOTE]
Sure…that’s pretty much what socialism is, so it’s unsurprising that Sanders advocates for it.
Well, since our population doesn’t in fact have 45% below the poverty line (it’s more like 14-15%…still not great but no where near 45%) I guess we are doing ok after all. 
I wish him all the luck, but he’s got almost zero chance of beating Clinton (or anyone else) for the Democratic nomination. The most he can hope for is to do well enough to move the party a bit further left in the primary and make the other candidates at least talk about issues he thinks are important.
It bears noting that this is so patently obviously the correct interpretation of his remarks that any attempt to advance any alternative interpretation can only be viewed as an exercise in disingenuousness.
That (the bolded part) doesn’t necessarily follow. The most that can be said is that we’re not doing as poorly as we would be with a 45% rate.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
That (the bolded part) doesn’t necessarily follow. The most that can be said is that we’re not doing as poorly as we would be with a 45% rate.
[/QUOTE]
It’s the best percentage since 2007 and we are coming off of a pretty nasty recession. In addition, that’s why I added the ‘still not great but no where near 45%’ part, and put the ‘I guess we are doing ok after all’ with a ‘:p’ after it, to denote tongue in cheek. 
Oh, ok.
Sorry - I bungled a quote from that article about the deodorant. Bernie said:
Which is where the 45 came from. Bernie’s saying that we should base our notion about the strength of our economy on how many of our people live in poverty, not in on the soaring bottom lines of our businesses, is what I was trying to say about what Bernie’s saying.
And yeah, as I said earlier, I don’t think Bernie’s got a real chance - but it’s not because he hates shoes and deodorant. Or toilet paper.
Herein lies the genius of running Hillary for President, who can’t do that.
These characterizations of Sander’s position are highly misleading. Here is the full quote: [INDENT][INDENT] HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?
SANDERS: Yes. If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. People scared to death about what happens tomorrow. Half the people in America have less than $10,000 in savings. How do you like that? That means you have an automobile accident, you have an illness, you’re broke. How do you retire if you have less than $10,000, and you don’t have much in the way of Social Security? [/INDENT][/INDENT] No calls for a cutback on deodorants. No claims about a pro-deodorant conspiracy.
Basically we have conservatives attacking imaginary positions by imaginary Bernie Sanders. I guess I agree. Conservative hallucinations are scary.
In the interview, deodorant is mentioned once. I’m not saying that I particularly like Sander’s position. I’m saying that depictions of his positions cast doubt on the reliability of some of his critics: the gap between report and reality is that large.
It is if you leave your analysis at such a superficial, binary level. We’ve been over this many times, but in short, supporting Israel and its right to exist and a desire for peace in the region can require opposing Netanyahu and his policies. Only the shallowest jingoism can lead to seeing that as anti-Semitic. Netanyahu is not Israel nor Judaism.
I’m all for Bernie but I get that he couldn’t pull it off because of the “socialist” stigma.
Could Bernie though, hypothetically, win against Sarah Palin? I’m thinking and inclined to think that even that would prove to be difficult. 