That’s cool. BTW, that post spurred me to go back and revisit the OP, and I noticed that it is framed in what I consider an illegitimate way that I often see from supporters of candidates further to the left. Namely, it sets up a dynamic where people are only allowed to make their decision based on their personal ideal policy preferences, without consideration of pragmatic party politics. I strenuously reject that restriction. A candidate who lined up with me on every single imaginable issue would be the last person I would ever vote for in the Democratic primary.
i like peace and I am vehemently opposed to Bernie.
Of course groups that tend to brand their strategic approaches with “peace” would tend to think of me as a hawk. I favor the post WWII international rules based order. American military superiority and free trade have been important components of that. Sanders is generally an opponent of both. Sometimes creating the stability that has made the post WWII so peaceful and prosperous for the world takes intervention that Sanders record makes me doubt he will follow through. I’d be willing to at least consider a fully fleshed out strategic framework that is different. I haven’t seen it from Sanders…or really anybody beloved of the peace activist groups.
Coming after Trump’s weakening of that framework, four years of Sanders approach IMO might be the end of the current framework. I genuinely expect Sanders approach to foster an international environment where smaller wars increase in frequency and severity in the shorter term. In the longer run the Trump-Sanders combination makes me think I will live long enough to see another war at or near the scale of WWII. It will be after he leaves office but I will be cussing both Trump and Sanders out equally in that hypothetical. It’s not something I am willing to accept in trade for a couple years of low US involvement in combat operations.
I want a nice, relatively peaceful, and stable international environment. Sanders platform and record makes me think he’s a major threat to world peace in the long term.
A lot of people who call for “peace” are either the “plug fingers in ears and hope it goes away” type or the type who put the cart before the horse, thinking that eliminating the fire department will get rid of fires.
(not meaning you personally, just many peaceniks in general)
The thing that bothers me about Sanders is he doesnt push personal responsibility. He blames everyones problems whether it be working at a low wage job or heavy student debt on someone else.
In the first part a woman working at Disney for 30 years and is upset she makes so little. Yes, the woman makes a crappy low wage but thats what the job pays. She hit a brick paywall years ago and $15.70 an hour is all they are going to pay her to set up a buffet. She turned down promotions and other moves over the years and now complains its Disney fault.
Jump ahead to 6:20, Bernie Sanders though puts her on his stage as a shining example of evil corporations and cries tears for her. Never once does he point a finger of fault at the woman.
Jump to 3:30 where the head of the chamber of commerce explains all this.
Sanders fails to point out Disney is a massive corporation with many career opportunities so starting out in a job cleaning the grounds can get you into a much better job later on.
So my point is Sanders loves to put these sad cases up on stage to blast the evil corporations but never tells people to take responsibility for their own lives.
I can see the campaign posters now. “Sanders 2020: your problems are your own damn fault!”
In western politics, you talk about personal responsibility when you want to cut social spending. It’s not surprising Sanders doesn’t take that angle.
And you didn’t mention all the craziness in Europe with far right governments taking control and the constant attacks on the EU.
His official campaign store sells a shirt with the rules of the road listed.
https://store.peteforamerica.com/collections/apparel/products/rules-of-the-road-tee
And, I am very active on Twitter. I love how some of us remind people that they might be going too far in criticism of other candidates to #belikePete and #rulesoftheroad
Pete’s rules are definitely very cool. I hope he can figure out a way to leverage his enormous talent and wisdom to be a serious factor in politics in 10 or 15 years.
You make some valid points. There is something else that bothers me about this, in the same way that Katie Porter’s hectoring of Jamie Dimon did:
Bernie is famous for pushing the “Fight for $15”. That is supposed to be the progressive left’s rallying cry, right? But in both the Porter case and here with Bernie, the workers they are talking about make more than $15 an hour! :smack: How does that not lead to an extremely muddled message? What is the actual amount a company can pay and not be demonized by these politicians?
I would love to see this. I was thinking of starting one, but I’m not the most versed on Bernie’s policies as some others such as yourself might be. I think it’s helpful to see the policies of the different candidates, especially from people who know about them best.
Bernie’s stuck in neutral because people have heard the same pitch over and over again for 4 years, and there’s nothing new to see here. He’s definitely served his purpose in putting ideas that were once considered fringe left back into the mainstream, and he’s largely been a force for good in that sense - he’s pumped life back into liberalism. But that doesn’t mean he’d be a good president. I think he’d be a disaster, frankly.
Elizabeth Warren studied bankruptcy and its ramifications on families for years. She looked at real life case studies, examined the system, wrote detailed reports of her findings, testified as a private citizen about the consequences of inaction to Congress. Then she was instrumental in the foundation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. All before she became an elected official.
Bernie Sanders has just ranted about these issues in vague generalities for thirty years.
You know sometimes they are your OWN DAMN FAULT! Did you even watch that video of the woman who’s been at Disney for 30 YEARS and is complaining because she hit the brick pay wall years ago and never tried for a better paying job?
Do you understand the concept of a pay wall? That means you reach the limit of whatever that job pays so maybe you work at a job in a category that starts at $9.50 an hour and tops off with raises at $11.50 an hour. Thats the wall. Thats all the job pays. If you dont like it, you work into a better paying job.
For example at my work I started at a level 7 but 20 years later I’m a level 10. I took my level 10 job because it meant a $5,000 a year increase. Its also why teachers get higher degrees or go into administration (become a principal).
Good grief the woman puts food out on a buffet line and wonders why she’s not making $50,000 a year.
Did you even watch the video?
Did you? I doubt it.
So called “far right” governments took so called “control” thru the ballot box. They got in because they were voted in by the citizens of those countries. Why did they get voted in? Because the liberal governments didnt listen to the people
Simple. Listen to the people and vote the way they want. If not, find yourself going home on election day.
Very true. And actually $15 an hour would barely cover rent in major cities like New York. Porter even herself says the job offered is $16.50 an hour. Thats $1.50 above the proposed minimum wage.
Bernie might learn a lot from this. Two petitioners were gathering signatures for ballot access in Blacksburg, Virginia, a tiny speck of blue in that very deep red part of Virginia. The Pete and Amy Klobuchar petitioners signed each other’s petitions in the spirit of the rules of the road. Ballot access is difficult in Virginia. See what happens when you don’t campaign against the party you’re seeking the nomination of.
Reminds me of a planning board meeting I chaired some years ago. While most issues that come up aren’t controversial, this one was: we had the room jam packed full of people, some arguing that we ought to grant the permit in question, some that we ought to deny it. The division was pretty much even, lots of people arguing on both sides. Most speakers, on both sides, were reasonably coherent and reasonably relevant, though of course there were some exceptions, and of course by the time the discussion had been going on for a while it had gotten repetitious.
After about two hours of this, one person stood up and made a comment, and what they had to say was this:
“I can’t understand why you don’t just do what the people want!”
It had apparently not sunk in to that person, through all that time of argument, that not all ‘the people’ wanted the same thing.
Well the only thing I can add is in the case of political parties they put themselves and their views out there and the people vote so when you have a group that used to get maybe 5% of the vote suddenly gets 50%, something must be happening and the other candidates and parties better start listening.
Of course not, sounds like a waste of time. I understood your summary and was just commenting on your peeve that Sanders isn’t handing out tough love.
Edmund Burke, MP, would beg to differ: Quote by Edmund Burke - Liberty Quotes
To be honest that is always the choise of the representative they follow:
- The choices of their people.
- The choices of their party.
- They make their own choices.