• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axiom_Blade said:
She's spreading the rumor that he won't win because he's a socialist. That's not red-baiting?
Click to expand...

How is it a 'rumor'? It's a given. She's just pointing it out. I've pointed it out myself. I'm not red-baiting, I agree with his views.

The clip of Sanders praising Castro and Ortega was not well received in the Univision debate.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
How is it a 'rumor'? It's a given. She's just pointing it out. I've pointed it out myself. I'm not red-baiting, I agree with his views.

The clip of Sanders praising Castro and Ortega was not well received in the Univision debate.
Click to expand...

It is easy to cherry pick short clips out from the context in which they were originally offered. Personally, I don't have any problem with what Sanders said in the shorter clip televised during the debate, but if you listen to the entire interview, the context gives a more clear picture of exactly what he was actually talking about:

 
Trakar said:
It is easy to cherry pick short clips out from the context in which they were originally offered. Personally, I don't have any problem with what Sanders said in the shorter clip televised during the debate, but if you listen to the entire interview, the context gives a more clear picture of exactly what he was actually talking about:

Click to expand...

The problem wasn't as much about the conversation from 40 years ago as it was Sanders' answer in the debate (discussed above).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem wasn't as much about the conversation from 40 years ago as it was Sanders' answer in the debate (discussed above).
Click to expand...

This answer?
Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government-democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the-to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about.
Click to expand...

Nothing there...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem wasn't as much about the conversation from 40 years ago as it was Sanders' answer in the debate (discussed above).
Click to expand...

I'm as I said, I have no real problem with Sanders' response. You can't please everyone all the time, but as long as you are sincere and consistent, there is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion and perspective. I heard nothing that should have offended or alienated anyone except those who prefer to demonize and dehumanize America's competition and advisories, former and current.
 
Trakar said:
I'm as I said, I have no real problem with Sanders' response. You can't please everyone all the time, but as long as you are sincere and consistent, there is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion and perspective. I heard nothing that should have offended or alienated anyone except those who prefer to demonize and dehumanize America's competition and advisories, former and current.
Click to expand...

But the issue in this discussion is not what you or I think of Sanders' beliefs, it's how the majority of the people in the country will view it.
 
BenBurch said:
Obviously the Democrats of Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota seem to think it's just fine with them!
Click to expand...

Those are states and it doesn't include Republicans. The majority of Democrats in the country so far are supporting Clinton.
 
Tony Stark said:
You can do what you want. But if is Hillary and Trump, one of them will become President of the United States. It is not possible that someone else would win the election. The only thing that people who vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton is not ideologically pure enough for them could conceivably collectively "achieve" is make it more likely that Donald Trump becomes the President. If that is acceptable to you, so be it.
Click to expand...

Only because enough people believe that to make it so.
 
Damien Evans said:
Only because enough people believe that to make it so.
Click to expand...
No, our system makes it impossible for a third party to win the Presidency. Specifically, the Constitutional requirement that the winner get the majority of the electoral votes. A third party could, at most, make it so that nobody gets a majority. Then the House would elect the President.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom