2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

a total outsider who's been in the Senate for, what, 25+ years?

the comparisons to '08 are being made by Sanders supporters -- that he's the new Obama, able to command a stadium full of youngs with the wave of his hand. the truth, though, is that Obama's crowds were much larger, he drew off a broader coalition, and Clinton was closer to him throughout (likely due to racial anxiety amongst the working class whites who were her base in '08).

so i don't think your framing of the comparison to '08 is accurate at all.

i think his message is an important one, and one that is likely to resonate especially with the young. it also doesn't appear to have been terribly thought through. but it's emotional appeal is undeniable and obviously working.

while HRC has clear weaknesses as a candidate, i don't think we should underestimate how skilled Sanders is. he has a real message and he's sticking to it, which is part of her problem -- what is she offering beyond "i know a lot and will work really hard and do a really good job"?

I agree with you here, especially the last part. Bernie has stuck with one message, over and over and over and over and over and over again. In fact it's the reason i bailed on support for him.
I loved him and then got to a point where i would instantly switch the channel because he NEVER talked about anything else other than stating stats of income inequality and wall st. info.

BUT, in the simple world of politics to the masses. this plays. Big talk, no detail, No nuance, no grey, no stopping to analyze. Hillary is all about grey, nuanced, details and analyzing. To me, this makes an infinitely better president, unfortunately, not a a better candidate.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

which is part of her problem -- what is she offering beyond "i know a lot and will work really hard and do a really good job"?

She's basically saying she's "gonna make America great again" with different wording.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Oh come on. You know exactly what I was implying. He's a total outsider from the establishment of the Democratic Party. He has liberal ideas and caucused with the Democrats, but he's been an independent for his 25+ years.

Who is calling Sanders the new Obama? I'm not comparing anyone to anyone in 2008. That's what you're doing. Nobody is like Obama, and Hilary Clinton is, if anything, just like herself.

but he is not a political outsider -- he's maintained office in one of the smallest, whitest, most rural (and lovely) states in the country. pretty soon, there will be more people in Washington DC (and still no Congressional representation!). he's more of a political outlier. politics (if not policy) he knows and knows well.

the Sanders=Obama idea has been drawn by those who point to the size of his rallies as evidence of his ability to spur turnout, and that calls for a "political revolution" are the same as the "hope/change" of '08.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Hewson

She's basically saying she's "gonna make America great again" with different wording.

She's gonna make it whole!

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Oh come on. You know exactly what I was implying. He's a total outsider from the establishment of the Democratic Party. He has liberal ideas and caucused with the Democrats, but he's been an independent for his 25+ years.

Who is calling Sanders the new Obama? I'm not comparing anyone to anyone in 2008. That's what you're doing. Nobody is like Obama, and Hilary Clinton is, if anything, just like herself.

This underscores my biggest problem with him.

I call him both-ways Bernie.
He has sat in his progressive/libertarian-lite bubble for decades, casting votes of little consequence, caucusing with Dems, but anecdotally, he was MIA quite a bit when it came to actually being an proactive player in anything. The Black, Latino and even progressive caucuses back Clinton 75 to 2 because of this.

I could go on for 20 minutes about all of his both ways stances and votes which shield him from ever really doing anything, yet coming out seeming like a progressive warrior.

Any way you slice it, just because he's been and Independent, doesn't erase the fact that he is been in washington forever. In fact he's only been a politician his entire life. The excuses made for him though, are never-ending.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Hewson

She's basically saying she's "gonna make America great again" with different wording.

not at all. she's saying, "i'm going to continue to make America better in small increments" whereas Sanders is saying, "i'm going to make America more like Denmark."

the nostalgia for a better, whiter past is solely on the GOP side.

[BEAL]

Bernie's interview with the NY Daily News was horrible.

But much like Trump can get away with lies, and whatever crap he spews out

Bernie can do the same thing and his supporters really won't be swayed. They don't care about the HOW, they just care about the emotion behind it.

Wall Street is evil
Greed is evil
Be like the Pope
Income Equality

I loved how the interviewer asked what would happen to JPMorgan after the breakup, and Bernie had no fucking clue. While I agree with him that these businesses have gotten too big....he doesn't really know how to fix it other than an extreme (break them up!!)

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

but he is not a political outsider -- he's maintained office in one of the smallest, whitest, most rural (and lovely) states in the country. pretty soon, there will be more people in Washington DC (and still no Congressional representation!). he's more of a political outlier. politics (if not policy) he knows and knows well.

the Sanders=Obama idea has been drawn by those who point to the size of his rallies as evidence of his ability to spur turnout, and that calls for a "political revolution" are the same as the "hope/change" of '08.

I never said he was an outsider of politics? I don't get why you're implying that.

The only comparisons I've routinely seen is Sanders is where Clinton was, chasing a Barack Obama who secured most of the same states that Clinton has during this election cycle. And that Sanders is *even farther* from Clinton now than Clinton was from Obama when Clinton was in Sanders' shoes. That's effectively the argument anyone is making when they say that Sanders is farther from Clinton now than Clinton was from Obama then. It's not a very good argument.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

This underscores my biggest problem with him.

I call him both-ways Bernie.
He has sat in his progressive/libertarian-lite bubble for decades, casting votes of little consequence, caucusing with Dems, but anecdotally, he was MIA quite a bit when it came to actually being an proactive player in anything. The Black, Latino and even progressive caucuses back Clinton 75 to 2 because of this.

I could go on for 20 minutes about all of his both ways stances and votes which shield him from ever really doing anything, yet coming out seeming like a progressive warrior.

Any way you slice it, just because he's been and Independent, doesn't erase the fact that he is been in washington forever. In fact he's only been a politician his entire life. The excuses made for him though, are never-ending.

Bernie Sanders is far far far far from Libertarian and never claimed to be so. I feel as though anti-big money and genuineness has been falsely attributed to Libertarianism, simply because Sanders funds the same way a Ron Paul did. He couldn't be farther from the Libertarian ideology at this point.

I'm not making any excuses for Senator Sanders. I'm also not denying he's a politician. I do disagree with the idea that he's a flipflopper -- very frequently Sanders will just be far more ideological and less willing to settle. He's got an incredibly clean record for a politician who has been around as long as he has.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Bernie Sanders is far far far far from Libertarian and never claimed to be so. I feel as though anti-big money and genuineness has been falsely attributed to Libertarianism, simply because Sanders funds the same way a Ron Paul did. He couldn't be farther from the Libertarian ideology at this point.

I'm not making any excuses for Senator Sanders. I'm also not denying he's a politician. I do disagree with the idea that he's a flipflopper -- very frequently Sanders will just be far more ideological and less willing to settle. He's got an incredibly clean record for a politician who has been around as long as he has.

I think he has claimed "states rights" on a few issues where he doesn't want to make a stand on an issue. ie. Guns regulations
Also, his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge and interest in gaining any more knowledge, gives me that libertarian feel. His stance against the import/export bank and his really strange support of the Minute Men Militia all support it even more.

There's a reason he does well with the great White West areas. He is getting the liberals and libertarians.

I am also not calling him a "flip-flopper". But someone who votes or takes actions that are contradictory, and in the end can claim he was right either way.

A few quick examples,
He voted twice for regime change in Iraq. Then voted against to means to actually make that happen. Then voted 5 times to fund the action that he voted no on...

He voted for the Auto Bailout, but no on the funds to make the Bailout work.

He is an independent. He takes the Dem name to run for president. He then begrudgingly calls himself a Democrat when pressed on it, but then turns around and calls any Dem that doesn't support or agree with him "establishment". and raises ZERO money for the party that he joined, which has given him millions worth of information, exposure and infrastructure.


That's just a few. But you get my point.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

I think he has claimed "states rights" on a few issues where he doesn't want to make a stand on an issue. ie. Guns regulations

Also, his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge and interest in gaining any more knowledge, gives me that libertarian feel. His stance against the import/export bank and his really strange support of the Minute Men Militia all support it even more.



There's a reason he does well with the great White West areas. He is getting the liberals and libertarians.



I am also not calling him a "flip-flopper". But someone who votes or takes actions that are contradictory, and in the end can claim he was right either way.



A few quick examples,

He voted twice for regime change in Iraq. Then voted against to means to actually make that happen. Then voted 5 times to fund the action that he voted no on...



He voted for the Auto Bailout, but no on the funds to make the Bailout work.



He is an independent. He takes the Dem name to run for president. He then begrudgingly calls himself a Democrat when pressed on it, but then turns around and calls any Dem that doesn't support or agree with him "establishment". and raises ZERO money for the party that he joined, which has given him millions worth of information, exposure and infrastructure.





That's just a few. But you get my point.

But states rights also isn't libertarianism. It's constitutionalism. Libertarians, especially those on the right, see states rights as a systematic method of dissolving power from the federal government and thus closer to the people. So, in some sense states rights "can be" libertarian, but inherently that's not necessarily true. That's very much so a constitutional argument. If and when he makes a states rights argument, it's usually a method of deferral.

I'm really confused as to why you think he has a lack of knowledge on foreign policy (and why that's also a libertarian thing).

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

But states rights also isn't libertarianism. It's constitutionalism. Libertarians, especially those on the right, see states rights as a systematic method of dissolving power from the federal government and thus closer to the people. So, in some sense states rights "can be" libertarian, but inherently that's not necessarily true. That's very much so a constitutional argument. If and when he makes a states rights argument, it's usually a method of deferral.

I'm really confused as to why you think he has a lack of knowledge on foreign policy (and why that's also a libertarian thing).

Ok, I'm saying that he has some whispers of libertarianism and constitusionalism (Paul style at least) in some of his stances.

Maybe i shouldn't have said lack of knowledge as a libertarian thing. That's untrue. I do think he lacks knowledge on it, especially in comparison to Hillary. But more striking to me is that he seems to have NO interest to get any knowledge. It seems that the story of his fellow congress members saying that when they would try to include him on briefings, he would say - "It's not my thing" continues to ring true.

He also seems happy enough to not really get involved overseas. And that's ok with me, IF it is at least looked at, studied, and decided on that it's the best move. Not just, ignoring problems abroad because we should just worry about America and big banks and income inequality...

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm totally fine with whatever reservations or criticisms you might have with Senator Sanders. I have my own. I just don't even remotely agree with the libertarian thing. I also think Ron Paul is labeled as *the* libertarian, as though classical liberalism was invented by him. I like libertarianism as a thought (though I don't particularly adhere to one political philosophy). Ron Paul definitely doesn't define classical liberalism.

[PhilsFan]

Yeah, Sanders having a shitty view on guns doesn't make him a libertarian. It just makes him someone with a shitty view on guns.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'm totally fine with whatever reservations or criticisms you might have with Senator Sanders. I have my own. I just don't even remotely agree with the libertarian thing. I also think Ron Paul is labeled as *the* libertarian, as though classical liberalism was invented by him. I like libertarianism as a thought (though I don't particularly adhere to one political philosophy). Ron Paul definitely doesn't define classical liberalism.

You make a good point. I'm not the best on what constitutes a libertarian. I know that Paul is at best, a quasi-libertarian. And I'm probably attributing the surprising support Sanders is getting from a fair amount of self-described libertarians as something more about him than there is.

I will reiterate that I like bernie and am glad that he is in the race and has really brought about some incredibly important topics that would have otherwise been ignored.

I obviously have my issues with him as well, but i will support whoever wins whole-heartedly. I am venting a bit cause it would be nice to be able to get behind a steady candidate and be strong early against the scariest GOP choices we've ever seen.

onward to new york

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

Paul Ryan

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Paul Ryan

[Diemen]

Hey, cori, I've been meaning to ask you: what are your thoughts on Paul Ryan?

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Paul Ryan

[Mack_Again]

Cori, what do you think of Mitt Romney guy?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

You make a good point. I'm not the best on what constitutes a libertarian. I know that Paul is at best, a quasi-libertarian. And I'm probably attributing the surprising support Sanders is getting from a fair amount of self-described libertarians as something more about him than there is.

That much I can agree with. I think this probably happens largely do to the Ron Paul factor with fundraising and genuineness. Anti-super PAC, honest political philosophy, incredibly fundamentalist... usage of state's rights as a deferral for contradiction (though, in some senses I do believe state's rights is the way to get things done at the federal level).