"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

Yep. Unfortunately Bernie just isnt going to be able to enact the sort of change we need. He just doesnt seem capable. At this point, I think he would just make a mess of everything he tries to change which would be far worse than maintaining the status quo under Hillary.

Makes me sad, because I was definitely with him until that interview. He confirmed all the fears I had about him.

 

[DDS]

I feel like 2016-2020 is going to be about holding onto the work Obama has done and keeping the GOP obstructionism at bay, rather than making real progress. As a college student who had a lot of hope in Bernie, now I feel that even if he did get elected, he might disappoint big time. I will vote for Hillary in November to maintain the balance of the Supreme Court, as well as Dems in down ticket and mid term elections, but this political climate is so incredibly ******. And she could very well lose her second term to someone like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, if the GOP actually has their act together in 2020.

 

[souvlaki]

Obama's agenda was far less ambitious than Sanders and everyone saw how hard it was for him to push it through congress. One of the reasons I've been opposed to Sanders since he entered the race is because I honestly believe even if Democrats held both the House and the Senate practically nothing he wants to get done would get done. Getting the ACA through congress was like pulling teeth and people honestly believe universal is going to happen? I hate to be cynical but the last 8 years have proved incremental changes are about all our government is capable of.

 

[summerteeth]

Obama's agenda was far less ambitious than Sanders and everyone saw how hard it was for him to push it through congress. One of the reasons I've been opposed to Sanders since he entered the race is because I honestly believe even if Democrats held both the House and the Senate practically nothing he wants to get done would get done. Getting the ACA through congress was like pulling teeth and people honestly believe universal is going to happen? I hate to be cynical but the last 8 years have proved incremental changes are about all our government is capable of.

Not just what our government is capable of but it's built in to its design. Elections are staggered the way they are to keep people from being momentarily swayed in one direction from fundamentally changing everything.

 

[chaseter]

Obama's agenda was far less ambitious than Sanders and everyone saw how hard it was for him to push it through congress. One of the reasons I've been opposed to Sanders since he entered the race is because I honestly believe even if Democrats held both the House and the Senate practically nothing he wants to get done would get done. Getting the ACA through congress was like pulling teeth and people honestly believe universal is going to happen? I hate to be cynical but the last 8 years have proved incremental changes are about all our government is capable of.

It's far easier to just say bad Republicans than remember that Obama had majorities in the House and Senate. His ACTUAL opposition to the earlier versions of the ACA were fellow blue dog Democrats that ironically were replaced by the people with Republicans. Obama created the Tea Party because of his unwillingness to work with the GOP for healthcare reform. Republicans being the babies that they are, retreated to their corners with their own toys and screamed I hate you. The problems in Washington are the left and the right.

 

[souvlaki]

It's far easier to just say bad Republicans than remember that Obama had majorities in the House and Senate. His ACTUAL opposition to the earlier versions of the ACA were fellow blue dog Democrats that ironically were replaced by the people with Republicans. Obama created the Tea Party because of his unwillingness to work with the GOP for healthcare reform. Republicans being the babies that they are, retreated to their corners with their own toys and screamed I hate you. The problems in Washington are the left and the right.

I dont believe I said anything about Republicans being the only ones that made it difficult to get thr ACA through congress. Actually, democrats having a majority in 2010 was kind of my point.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Makes me sad, because I was definitely with him until that interview. He confirmed all the fears I had about him.

too much is being made of this interview,

Bernie talks about the treasury being able to do things while the interviewer pivots to the "fed reserve" which is entirely different from the treasury, either the interviewer is ignorant of that difference or they're hoping to exploit readers who are ignorant of the difference between the treasury and federal Reserve

Obama announced a move of drone authority from Cia to military but quietly killed this iniative but that last bit was left out

 

[Kelly]

It was a bad interview, no matter how you look at it. Trying to explain that away is not going to happen...it was bad.

 

[chaseter]

I dont believe I said anything about Republicans being the only ones that made it difficult to get thr ACA through congress. Actually, democrats having a majority in 2010 was kind of my point.

I was speaking broadly and backing up your point.

 

[Chance Jackson]

I dont believe I said anything about Republicans being the only ones that made it difficult to get thr ACA through congress. Actually, democrats having a majority in 2010 was kind of my point.

Democrats had a shaky filibuster proof majority that could not be counted on because Ted Kenedy was fighting brain cancer and died in 09 while Sen Byrd was also in poor health and missed about 66% of the votes for the last 6 months of 09.

The 60 vote super majority lasted abou 4 months

 

[Chance Jackson]

It was a bad interview, no matter how you look at it. Trying to explain that away is not going to happen...it was bad.

anyone can make a blanket statement, which specific points did you think Bernie himself answered poorly?

 

[Chance Jackson]

And there is the inherent hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders that has caused me to take issue with him from day one. This is a guy who touts himself as standing by his principles, no matter how unpopular they are...yet he is all too willing to throw his principles away and join a party that he has spent 25 years adamantly refusing to join due to its "corruption" when it became convenient for him to join it. His sudden shift on super delegates is another example. Throughout the campaign, Sanders and his surrogates have screamed from the roof tops that super delegates are undemocratic and it is the will of the people that we should be listening to. Now that him catching Clinton is virtually impossible, his campaign is aggressively targeting super delegates, asking them to throw their support behind him and vote against the popular vote. Bernie Sanders sticks by his principles until they get in the way of something that he wants.

And that would be fine, everyone in DC is a filthy hypocrite. But when you run an entire campaign calling everyone else a hypocrite, then your hypocrisy becomes all the worse. You know, the whole people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones cliche...I think it applies perfectly to Senator Sanders.

he isn't running away from his democratic socialist moniker he's attempting to return the dems to "new deal" priorities

What's the alternative: be an independent and face (il)legal mannevering from the dems to keep him off ballots in november like ralph Nader in 04? Face illegal financial harassment like ralph Nader in 04? Sure a few dems went to jail but that was after the election and it was just the cost of doing business for them so they would obviously do it in 2016 too

all he would accomplish if he survived the harassment in his independent run is having a spoiler effect the dems could not overcome, the dems should count their lucky stars that bernie isn't running independent and will support the dems if and when he loses the nomination

 

[chaseter]

Voting for Hillary after supporting Bernie is an oxymoron.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Voting for Hillary after supporting Bernie is an oxymoron.

it's "lesser evil politics" which generally makes sense because it's usually emotional hyperbole, but this "lesser evil" is just too, too evil and too instrumental in creating multiple failed states with foolish hawkish policies that ultimately make us all much more unsafe

 

[summerteeth]

anyone can make a blanket statement, which specific points did you think Bernie himself answered poorly?

Too many to list. I actually laughed out loud at many of responses about how clueless he seemed. I love when the interviewer has to explain that if you break up the banks there will be consequences and how would he manage the break up of the banks and Sanders acts like it's the first time he has had to think about that.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Seriously comes across as a blathering idiot.

 

[souvlaki]

I think what makes it worse is the people saying the reporter was being unfair in their questioning. I'm sure the same people applauded the Palin interviews back in 2008. He was asked policy questions about his biggest issues and he failed miserably at answering them. Blame Bernie not the reporter for not throwing softballs. Wish more reporters would do that instead of playing with kids gloves when it comes to him.

 

[Fenrir]

Except that is also something that he lacks the authority to do, get money out of politics. Whether Bernie likes it or not, Citizens United is the law of the land. Further, very few who oppose it (and I do) have actually read it. It is a narrow holding based on sound legal rationale. You would be very hard pressed to overturn it under those conditions. In fact, I dare say it will be nearly impossible to get one justice, who will overturn legal precedent based on sound constitutional interpretation, past the Senate much less enough to flip the court. Even the most liberal of judges respect stare decisis.

Just listen to yourself here. You almost sound like an apologetic for Citizens United. What you are effectively saying is not that Bernie's proposed policies are harmful, morally wrong or detrimental to public interest, he just "can't get them done". That's not a principled opposition, it is being defeatist and apathetic.

And last I remembered, we are still living in a democracy and it is the people who have the ultimate authority. The Supreme Court does not always have the final and unquestionable say in the law of the land - that itself would be a form of tyranny of the unelected. Supreme Court decisions, or even existing laws can be overturned through constitutional amendments as stated in Article 5 of the United States Constitution. And let's not forget that the Supreme Court overruled itself more than 50 times on various issues, so forgive me for not being intimidated by the odds.

People may disagree who they want as President or which party should run the government, but by and large the citizens of this country overwhelmingly support the idea of getting money out of politics. Even if Bernie isn't elected, because of the platform he has now he has been able to drag this issue into the mainstream and despite the best efforts of the media and establishment lackeys to keep it buried. And if John Oliver's recent segment about the increasing resentment among elected officials on being forced to spend disproportionate amount of time begging big donors for money instead of working on legislation is any indication, then a President Bernie Sanders might have more support on this issue than expected. Sure, a president on his own can't take money out of politics, but he sure as hell can accelerate the process. Sanders' campaign and fundraising have refuted prevailing political wisdom about succumbing to special interests as a harsh and unavoidable reality of running for office, and from this point onwards, you can be he sure as hell won't be the last to do so.

 

[summerteeth]

Just listen to yourself here. You almost sound like an apologetic for Citizens United. What you are effectively saying is not that Bernie's proposed policies are harmful, morally wrong or detrimental to public interest, he just "can't get them done". That's not a principled opposition, it is being defeatist and apathetic.

And last I remembered, we are still living in a democracy and it is the people who have the ultimate authority. The Supreme Court does not always have the final and unquestionable say in the law of the land - that itself would be a form of tyranny of the unelected. Supreme Court decisions, or even existing laws can be overturned through constitutional amendments as stated in Article 5 of the United States Constitution. And let's not forget that the Supreme Court overruled itself more than 50 times on various issues, so forgive me for not being intimidated by the odds.

People may disagree who they want as President or which party should run the government, but by and large the citizens of this country overwhelmingly support the idea of getting money out of politics. Even if Bernie isn't elected, because of the platform he has now he has been able to drag this issue into the mainstream and despite the best efforts of the media and establishment lackeys to keep it buried. And if John Oliver's recent segment about the increasing resentment among elected officials on being forced to spend disproportionate amount of time begging big donors for money instead of working on legislation is any indication, then a President Bernie Sanders might have more support on this issue than expected. Sure, a president on his own can't take money out of politics, but he sure as hell can accelerate the process. Sanders' campaign and fundraising have refuted prevailing political wisdom about succumbing to special interests as a harsh and unavoidable reality of running for office, and from this point onwards, you can be he sure as hell won't be the last to do so.

People act like Sanders is the first to bring this to the front and that John McCain didn't run on this issue and had a legislative history of fighting for campaign finance reform.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Too many to list. I actually laughed out loud at many of responses about how clueless he seemed. I love when the interviewer has to explain that if you break up the banks there will be consequences and how would he manage the break up of the banks and Sanders acts like it's the first time he has had to think about that.



Seriously comes across as a blathering idiot.

you expect him to know the particulars of that specific case? How many esoteric cases do you expect him to know the particulars of? Literally no one has talked about this case this campaign season till now. I myself only heard of it for the first time with this interview, do you have intimate knowledge of it?

 

[summerteeth]

Just listen to yourself here. You almost sound like an apologetic for Citizens United. What you are effectively saying is not that Bernie's proposed policies are harmful, morally wrong or detrimental to public interest, he just "can't get them done". That's not a principled opposition, it is being defeatist and apathetic.

And last I remembered, we are still living in a democracy and it is the people who have the ultimate authority. The Supreme Court does not always have the final and unquestionable say in the law of the land - that itself would be a form of tyranny of the unelected. Supreme Court decisions, or even existing laws can be overturned through constitutional amendments as stated in Article 5 of the United States Constitution. And let's not forget that the Supreme Court overruled itself more than 50 times on various issues, so forgive me for not being intimidated by the odds.

People may disagree who they want as President or which party should run the government, but by and large the citizens of this country overwhelmingly support the idea of getting money out of politics. Even if Bernie isn't elected, because of the platform he has now he has been able to drag this issue into the mainstream and despite the best efforts of the media and establishment lackeys to keep it buried. And if John Oliver's recent segment about the increasing resentment among elected officials on being forced to spend disproportionate amount of time begging big donors for money instead of working on legislation is any indication, then a President Bernie Sanders might have more support on this issue than expected. Sure, a president on his own can't take money out of politics, but he sure as hell can accelerate the process. Sanders' campaign and fundraising have refuted prevailing political wisdom about succumbing to special interests as a harsh and unavoidable reality of running for office, and from this point onwards, you can be he sure as hell won't be the last to do so.

People act like John McCain didn't run on this issue.

 

[Chance Jackson]

People act like Sanders is the first to bring this to the front and that John McCain didn't run on this issue and had a legislative history of fighting for campaign finance reform.

We recall McCain-Feingold but nothing you said refutes what Fenrir said

 

[summerteeth]

We recall McCain-Feingold but nothing you said refutes what Fenrir said

Just pointing out that McCain wasn't praised as much as Sanders is for his views and while McCain opted to be publicly funded and governed under campaign finance reform Obama opted out of it.

Sanders is a buffoon, I can't believe he has as much support as he does.

 

[Kelly]

Just listen to yourself here. You almost sound like an apologetic for Citizens United. What you are effectively saying is not that Bernie's proposed policies are harmful, morally wrong or detrimental to public interest, he just "can't get them done". That's not a principled opposition, it is being defeatist and apathetic.

And last I remembered, we are still living in a democracy and it is the people who have the ultimate authority. The Supreme Court does not always have the final and unquestionable say in the law of the land - that itself would be a form of tyranny of the unelected. Supreme Court decisions, or even existing laws can be overturned through constitutional amendments as stated in Article 5 of the United States Constitution. And let's not forget that the Supreme Court overruled itself more than 50 times on various issues, so forgive me for not being intimidated by the odds.

People may disagree who they want as President or which party should run the government, but by and large the citizens of this country overwhelmingly support the idea of getting money out of politics. Even if Bernie isn't elected, because of the platform he has now he has been able to drag this issue into the mainstream and despite the best efforts of the media and establishment lackeys to keep it buried. And if John Oliver's recent segment about the increasing resentment among elected officials on being forced to spend disproportionate amount of time begging big donors for money instead of working on legislation is any indication, then a President Bernie Sanders might have more support on this issue than expected. Sure, a president on his own can't take money out of politics, but he sure as hell can accelerate the process. Sanders' campaign and fundraising have refuted prevailing political wisdom about succumbing to special interests as a harsh and unavoidable reality of running for office, and from this point onwards, you can be he sure as hell won't be the last to do so.

It is being a realist in today's government ..... but also I don't think even Bernie KNOWS HOW to create and implement the things he is proposing .... he is simply stating what he wants our government to be....which in a country that is still very much slightly to the right of center and I mean slightly right, it is not going to happen. When Hillary gets the nod, listen to her rhetoric it will move very much to the center. Bernie would never do that...which is fine I wouldn't have a problem with it, but he would not get elected I don't care what the polls say right now.........we just haven't gotten there yet.....we are moving that direction but we aren't there yet.....I say at least another 20 years....before that kind of an agenda is give the mandate of the people's vote. Obama didn't even have that mandate.....is mandate was change... and the NEW factor.......his second term came because of nothing more than a forfeit by the republican candidate
We just aren't there....and I don't believe that Bernie, as much as I like the guy, is the person to get us even close.

 

[souvlaki]

you expect him to know the particulars of that specific case? How many esoteric cases do you expect him to know the particulars of? Literally no one has talked about this case this campaign season till now. I myself only heard of it for the first time with this interview, do you have intimate knowledge of it?

It's one of the most prominent platforms of his campaign. Even if he doesnt know the specifics of that case he should at least be able give an educated response instead of saying he has not studied the ramifications of that.

 

[Fenrir]

Yeah, obviously a President is not going to be an expert in every issue and will rely on his cabinet to make decisions. That being said Bernie doesn't even understand the issues that he's been yelling about for over a decade, stuff that he's made the pillars of his campaign. He doesn't understand legislation that he voted on. What makes you think that he'd be able to make the right decision when his cabinet advises him let alone understand what he's deciding on?

Actually, after Daily News' hit-piece, quite a few outlets came forward and pointed out that it was actually the Daily News reporters and editors who didn't know what they were talking about:

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-pres...go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/0...-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5
http://usuncut.com/politics/ny-daily-news-argument-destroyed-cnn/

Although my point about Sanders not knowing how reinstating Glass-Steagall would effectively take much of the risk out of the too-big-to-fail banks by either forcing them to only invest in safe asset classes such as treasuries or split their investment banking and brokerage divisions from their consumer banking divisions which would essentially be "breaking them up".

Aside from that, Sanders was actually right about Dodd-Frank and the Federal Reserve and the Daily News' assertion that he didn't know what he was talking about was a blatant lie.

To answer your question, Kasich.

Kindly enlighten me on his record. I am not being sarcastic. It's a genuine request. I'd rather not waste my time slogging through endless webpages when simply asking someone who knows much more about Kasich's positions over the years on different issues (as you clearly seem to) is faster and more convenient.

Yeah, no he's been wrong plenty of times. He voted against arguably the most important piece of legislation in the past decade in TARP. Without TARP we would still be in a recession or worse and he voted against it. He was slow to react to the VA scandal when he led the committee in the Senate because of his faith placed in federal ran programs. He voted for DOMA, he can't remember his own voting record. He really doesn't have a good track record. He just screams very loud about a few issues (that he doesn't seem to fully understand by his own admission) and states things very simply (because he's not capable of nuance).

Please, don't talk about TARP. If I start on that, it'll consume this entire thread. And if you are a pro-business conservative, then you are doubly a hypocrite for supporting it because it took away the most important mechanism in laissez-faire capitalism for enforcing discipline in a free market enterprise: the consequences of failure. After decades of imposing the Washington Consensus around the world which financially and economically crippled dozens of countries, these self-serving "champions" of capitalism who lambasted regulation and government interference in every single breath, ultimately had the nerve, the UTTER NERVE, to come begging government for help.

The VA scandal is most definitely an example of incompetence on his part, but not wrong judgment, unless of course you point to me instances where he voted against legislation to solve the VA issue or something like that. I'll look into your point about DOMA. Other than that, you really haven't given sufficient examples of how he has "been wrong plenty of times". Even if you are right about DOMA, it would revise my opinion about him a bit, but as long as he is the only one not getting bought out by special interests and raising the issue of money in politics on a national platform, he'll have my support.