Bernie Sanders 2016 Feel the Bern!

This is though where the criticism of what has Sanders done to actually build the type of political base to get things passed does matters. People have derided the work that Clinton has done to raise money and fund other Democratic candidates and state parties as being a sign of corruption. That ignores though that is exactly the type of work that is needed to build up a support base to get things passed.

In this respect the "Anti-Bernie" piece I think is spot on. As a Socialist outside of the Democratic party Sanders has been able to remain largely ideologically pure without getting involved in much of the frankly dirty work of of getting a lot done. As even he's admitted he's only running as a Democrat because he believes that gives him the best chance to win a National Election, not because he wants to build the party. Myself and many others have continually challenged Sanders supporters about how he will get his agenda passed and I have yet to see anything beyond vague responses about revolution, youth voters, and etc.. True Clinton will have a very difficult route to get things passed but if the Sanders' campaign is centered around the idea of making revolutionary change. One would expect then that how that change is made should matter.

 

I will point out at the end of the piece you cite it says this:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

[rquoter]While most people would get a net benefit from Sanders’s proposals, the revenue that his tax plan would raise “would fall far short of paying for the new spending programs,” TPC said. The single-payer healthcare proposal itself would cost almost twice as much as Sanders’s tax plan would raise.

Sanders’s proposals would raise federal deficits by about $18 trillion over the next 10 years, and would increase the deficit by about $21 trillion when net interest is taken into account, TPC said.

“The ultimate distribution of benefits under the plan would depend upon whether the government financed that deficit through tax increases, spending cuts, increased borrowing, or some combination of these options,” TPC said. “A plan substantially financed by borrowing could raise interest rates and impose a substantial drag on the economy.”[/rquoter]

 

The Sanders proposal is not possible and would be a disaster.

 

And ruin the current US trade system. The same individuals that support this nonsense think Trump is a jerk for proposing a rule that restricts visas in favor of hiring disadvantaged Americans. Oh, but Bernie's plan won't ruin the trade system with Europe. In fact, Bernie loves going to Europe. When he travels abroad he travels not to Asia, not to Africa, not to South America, but to Europe. He also likes citing Europe as a model for what America should be.

Hey Bernie bruhs, we need to talk.

 

I'm not going to debate campaign tactics anymore, I think there's a fair share of blood on either side, but supporters of both candidates have fundamentally different views of how this process has played out. I think there are a host of premises that we have disagreements on and until they are resolved it's going to a book's worth of writing to get anywhere. That's a discussion that is lengthier and better left settled in person.

In terms of policy, we can have a debate in this limited medium.

First and foremost, Bernie is right on climate change. Hillary is wrong. Plain and simple. (Carbon tax and Fracking)

Second issue, but equally as important as the first: money in politics. You seem to be okay with a candidate taking huge sums of money from special interests as long as there aren't too many quid pro quos. Hillary vows to overturn Citizens United, but people for some reason think money in politics won't be an issue if that court case is overturned, wrong. Our country hasn't been a democracy since 1980.

study:https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Two other court cases prior to Reagan's election really started getting this circus going (Buckley v Valeo and another, I forget) Citizens United just disproportionately helps Republicans, that's why she wanted to stop it. The Clintons love money in politics. That's why Bernie has proposed and supported amendments that would take money out, have we heard any talk of public funding of elections from Clinton? No.


Third issue, Bernie is right on free college tuition, Hillary's plan is shaky. She offers no long term solution to the problem of student debt, and simply offers a ridiculous way of restructuring it throughout a graduate's life.

Fourth issue, On infrastructure, Bernie is more right (American Society of Civil Engineers actually recommends 2-3 trillion spending if i remember correctly) Hillary only calls for 250 billion

Fifth issue. Healthcare. The ACA has not been able to adequately reduce the cost of healthcare or mitigate its rising costs, there needs to be a long-term solution that benefits the human capital of this country. Single-payer or a comparable system where everyone can have access to affordable healthcare is the way to go.



Many more issues to be talked about, but I don't have much time.
Now, perhaps you disagree with some of my premises (like should everyone have healthcare, is money a big problem is politics) but those come down to more ethical debates. I look at everything from a progressive viewpoint, you strike me as center-right or center-left, depending on the issue.)

 

They would and they would look ridiculous when compared to Mr. Sanders integrity, solemnity and forthrightness.

I think the percentages of the population that listen to Trump is finite. He won't gain much nationally except for people that hate Ms. Clinton more... it's duplicity and shadiness vs. bombastic stupidity.

 

"Cautious defeatism."

"Bernie all in for the Democratic Party."

There's one born every minute.

Yes, the typical line from the Bernie supporter when I say he's full of it, that he's all personality and no real policy and can't get his gigantic sweeping reforms passed (with or without an enormous tax raise that will pay for itself when you wave Harry Potter's magic wand):

"Oh, you're cynical, oh you've given up on life, you don't see the possibilities" blahbiddy blahbiddy blahbiddy blah.

Revolution? Come on, now. Believe it if you want.

Democrat? Believe it if you want. He's a Socialist. And he can't, won't, walk into Washington at the head of a bunch of twenty- and thirty-somethings and make their tuition bills disappear (although they believe this; I've spoken to some of them) and all of our health care paid for just on sheer will power.

You must take a more pragmatic approach.

 

You accuse Judo of "bias" towards Secretary Clinton, yet your posts and many of the other posts from Sanders supporters here are riddled with bias. Want examples? They are right here:

"You are not seeing the work Sanders is doing right now to build the political base. First he has shown that there is a whole world of people out there waiting to fight for something beside the cautious centrism/defeatism that the Clintons have espoused and worked for so effectively to promote for 30 years."

So "the Clintons" have espoused "defeatism" for 30 years? Two winning elections for President? Two winning elections to the Senate? 8 years of prosperity in the '90's that the nation would love to have today? In Clinton's first year as President, he pushed through a large tax increase on primarily upper income Americans. It didn't bring about doom. It helped bring about a booming economy and balanced budgets. A booming economy that Bill Clinton promoted with his policies, a booming economy that he deserves some credit for. Not only that. We also had a budget surplus, incredibly rare in the country, in the late '90's through 2000, leaving George W. Bush in fine shape after he stole the office with help from the Republican dominated Supreme Court. That's "defeatism?"

"So you admit there will be little if any change with Clinton if her tactics of the last 35 years continue. I agree with this unless the Bernie Revolution wakes her up of how to bring public pressure to bear. As a political chameleon my hope is that Hillary will respond by moving left even if she wins the general. This begs the question of whether Hillary is closer to her Goldwater upbringing or her brief left liberalism in college. The personal greed exhibited with her getting paid by Wall Street so highly as the presumptive winner in 2016 during the two year hiatus in which she was not bound by Government rules wrt to such fees raises doubts. Also 30 plus years of responding to conservatism and big money in politics by triangulation raises doubts."

Now it's the "last 35 years?" Make up your mind, glynch. Heck, dig around. There's bound to be something negative about her that you can bring up from her high school career. According to you, she's "a political chameleon." Senator Sanders is not? The independent for decades who's suddenly the "savior" of the Democratic Party?

"This begs the question of whether Hillary is closer to her Goldwater upbringing or her brief liberalism in college."

So you paint her with the "Goldwater brush," using the words, "her Goldwater upbringing." Give me a ****ing break. You are seriously going there? Then you accuse her of having a brief "fling" with "left liberalism," ignoring the decades long fight she has made for women's rights and other liberal/progressive issues. Not content to stop there, you accuse her of "personal greed" because she spent 2 years raising money for a future campaign within the rules. You call it corruption, you call it greed, when she was doing exactly what a candidate for the White House, and that was assuredly what she was preparing for, would do to raise money for a run for President. You act as if this is something unique to Hillary Clinton, when it isn't unique at all, but standard practice preparing for a run for President or other high office that takes a very expensive campaign if you hope to win. So Senator Sanders is using a different model? Good for him! It hasn't given him more votes than Ms. Clinton. It hasn't given him more pledged delegates than Ms. Clinton. You and others accuse her of "corruption" when she is playing the political game within the rules. So now Mr. Sanders is trying to change the rules during the game. How is that working out for him?

 

You still don't get it, glynch. I support both candidates, or did until Senator Sanders came out against the President's choice for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. You simply don't think it's possible to like two candidates that are supposed to be from the same party. In 2008, I liked both Obama and Clinton. I was forced to defend Clinton here simply because Obama supporters were busy demonizing her, as if 20+ years of the GOP doing it wasn't enough. Now we have Sanders supporters like you doing the same thing here, although you are far from the worst, to be fair.

Maybe you need to get out more.

 

39% of Sanders voters in WV today said they'd vote Trump over Sanders in a hypothetical fall matchup.

El. Oh. El.

 

Fair enough.

I actually somewhat agree with Sanders on the Carbon Tax as I do think that incentives a market solution further I think fracking should stop. As as Clinton succinctly noted in the NY debate though the use of natural gas is preferable to the use of coal in terms of mitigating pollution at the moment most of our infrastructure is still based on fossil fuel requiring transitional steps. Further lets consider how much success Sanders has had in getting political buy in whereas Clinton has actually negotiated climate change treaties. This is the type of absolutist thinking that marked Sanders' campaign and the inability to consider other points of view and being more concerned about being right than actually passing things.

Which again even though several opportunities have been put forward none have been shown.

Further as has been noted Sanders himself has taken PAC money including from Hillary Clinton's own PAC>

Actually she has and this was even before Sanders' campaign took off.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/08/hillary-clintons-campaign-finance-reform-plan-genuinely-good/
[rquoter]The most significant part of Clinton’s plan is her explicit call for the federal government to “establish a small donor matching system for presidential and congressional candidates.” With such a system, if someone donates $25 to a politician, the matching system would kick in some multiple of that to — as Clinton’s proposal puts it — “increase the role and influence of everyday Americans who cannot write large checks.”

Clinton does not specify what that multiple should be, but her plan is clearly modeled after the Government by the People Act, written by Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., and co-sponsored by most congressional Democrats. The Government by the People Act would provide a match in public funds equal to six or even nine times the original small donation, so that the $25 from a citizen would turn into $175 or $250 for the candidate. (You can read more about the act here, as well as an interview with Sarbanes here and here.) In one aspect Clinton’s proposal improves on Sarbanes’ plan: It would provide matching funds not just for congressional candidates but presidential ones as well.[/rquoter]

Except as noted it's not free tuition as it is paid through tax increases which are probably going to be more controversial than the plan itself. Further his tuition program 1/3 is dependent upon the states and as we've seen with the difficulty of expanding Medicaid under the ACA the states aren't exactly in lockstep with the Federal government on such large programs.

In fact Politifact rated his claim that he could pay for this program as mostly false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/

Yes they have recommended spending of $3.6 trillion by 2020 but Clinton isn't calling for only $250 billion in infrastructure spending she is calling for an increase of $275 billion to the existing infrastructure budget. Further she is also calling to allocate another other funds for the establishment of a bank to pay for new infrastructure which would equal to about $500 billion in increased infrastructure. That increase to the $400 billion that the US spent in 2014 on infrastructure starts putting Clinton's proposal much closer to Sanders' $1 trillion.

Like most Sanders proposals though the problem isn't so much the proposal itself but how he pays for it. Sanders has proposed a plan to close off shore tax loopholes doing so is much easier said than done. Further that considers that tax revenue would remain constant enough to pay for his program. As noted earlier many of Sanders proposals are counting that the economy will be able to grow at a robust rate.

Many agree on that but the problem again comes to how does such a program get passed? Keep in mind this isn't just winning over Republicans but also wrangling Congressional Democrats many who are the very people Sanders has been demonizing as the establishment. Besides just getting it passed there are still many other issues. Healthcare makes up a large proportion of our economy and our population is several times larger than any of the European countries that Sanders is modeling his proposals. Just to administer a single payer system will take a lot of new bureaucratic infrastructure. Even if there was the political will to put in single payer it will most likely take a decade just to build it and deal with the upheaval from the transition.

The argument against the ACA using single payer is the arguing the perfect against the good. It fails to take into consideration how determined the opposition was to any health care reform to begin and also how momentous it was to get the first major change nationally since the Medicaid /Medicare. The battle in Congress has been not ACA versus single payer but continuing reform going versus going back to the status quo of 2011.

On some issues I'm too the left of Clinton and on some issues I'm actually to the right. As I've said before there is no candidate that I agree with 100% on. The problem I see with Sanders isn't mainly issues though it is governance. What I see out of Sanders is alot of rhetoric promising a lot of things but little understanding of how those actually get passed and implemented. Looking at Sanders lengthy record there is nothing about it that says that he has the ability or even the inclination to take upon the challenges of what it takes to get things passed. Clinton has a lot of faults but given her previous experience I firmly believe she is far better positioned to do more. Further if you really look at her record and not the caricature that the GOP and many on the Left have put out you will see that far more often she has addressed many progressives issues.

 

Trade wars can start because of protectionist overkill, or they can start because you have a blundering idiot who happens to like tweeting too much for his own good. Bernie has said he would not have passed previous trade agreements as they were constructed and that he's looking to amending them. Trump has basically said "f**k you, tariff us--we're gonna tariff you 30%, you oriental rapiers". I hope I don't have to explain the difference in tact and degree of proposals.

I don't think he's a jerk for proposing this, I think he's an idiot who says flatly contradictory things--"I want Silicon Valley to prosper." + "shut down TNs and H1-Bs".

What disadvantaged Americans are we talking about in this case anyways? The kind who can pick up specific technical degrees and skills or vastly underemployed data scientists?

 

I suspect that has a lot to do with her statements that "She would put coal companies out of business."

As JeopardE noted since many of those voters are willing to vote for Trump this isn't exactly a pro-Sanders vote.

That said I will give the Sanders campaign credit for the win. He's been putting a lot of money in effort even as he isn't changing the the math much.

 

And you never really answer the question of how actually Sanders will bring about change. You just regurgitate the same talking points about revolution and lambast the establishment. What you still can't seem to address is that even with an impressive win in WV Sanders is still trailing in both pledged delegates and actual votes. If things were actually as you say they are then that number would be different.

And really "This begs the question of whether Hillary is closer to her Goldwater upbringing or her brief left liberalism in college."? This is the type of over the top characterization that you usually here from our friends way on the right. But I will forgive you since you think being content is an insult so one should expect occasionally getting unhinged.