• 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.
In the end, though, the number of Bernie supporters who refuse to vote for Hilary is going to be small,the closer the possibility of a Trump presidency gets. I think if he actually gets the nomination,a lot "I will NEVER vote for Hilary" voters will change their minds.
In 2008 there were a lot of really bitter Hillary supporters who said they would never vote for Obama...
 
Nope he's a "RINO" :boggled: who needed a batcrap crazy as his running mate to get out the base.
And lots of Republicans claim that McCain (and Romney) lost because they aren't conservative enough. They will of course say the same thing if Trump loses. I'm curious what they would say if Ted Cruz is the nominee and loses given that his whole Senate career has been about him being the one True Conservative. Would they go even further right somehow?
 
They'll just excuse it as "the Establishment didn't support him" or "he wasn't true enough". they are never going to accept "we just don't have the widespread support we need".
 
And lots of Republicans claim that McCain (and Romney) lost because they aren't conservative enough. They will of course say the same thing if Trump loses. I'm curious what they would say if Ted Cruz is the nominee and loses given that his whole Senate career has been about him being the one True Conservative. Would they go even further right somehow?

It's a classic case of the "Lost Tribe" school of political thought. That there is a vast hidden tribe of right wing voters who have not voted because the GOP has not nominated a candidate conservative enough. If the GOP would, the lost tribe would vote and sweep them to victory.
You have the same thing on the Democratic side: That there is a vast hidden tribe of Left Wing Voters who would come out if the Dems nominated a candidate far enough to the left. What has happened with Bernie pretty much shows how well that worked....
 
It's a classic case of the "Lost Tribe" school of political thought. That there is a vast hidden tribe of right wing voters who have not voted because the GOP has not nominated a candidate conservative enough. If the GOP would, the lost tribe would vote and sweep them to victory.
You have the same thing on the Democratic side: That there is a vast hidden tribe of Left Wing Voters who would come out if the Dems nominated a candidate far enough to the left. What has happened with Bernie pretty much shows how well that worked....

Well, except the left wing contestant that actually ends up as the nominee is actually pretty right wing most of the time compared to just about anywhere else in the world. So it is a little different. We haven't actually had a left wing since FDR in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
And lots of Republicans claim that McCain (and Romney) lost because they aren't conservative enough. They will of course say the same thing if Trump loses. I'm curious what they would say if Ted Cruz is the nominee and loses given that his whole Senate career has been about him being the one True Conservative. Would they go even further right somehow?

That's what happens with ideologues. Everything is about the ideology. Ergo, if you lose, you weren't ideological enough.
 
I think this is what is called "cluthing at Straws".
Bernie is not going to win the nomination.
Overseas Democrats always tilt much more heavily to the left then the party as a whole.

So do most of the states that still haven't assigned delegates, compared to the ones that already voted. The West Coast especially.
 
Last edited:
Well, except the left wing contestant that actually ends up as the nominee is actually pretty right wing most of the time compared to just about anywhere else in the world.
Just nonsense. Obama is not a right winger. He is center-left. He is also a realist. For example, if he had insisted on single payer instead of the ACA, he would have got nothing instead.
 
Just nonsense. Obama is not a right winger. He is center-left. He is also a realist. For example, if he had insisted on single payer instead of the ACA, he would have got nothing instead.

No... he's basically a centrist. As is Hillary. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to actually doing anything they're pretty darn centrist. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are what I'd call center-left. Far left would be communists or at least a more extreme version of socialism than what we see with Bernie. I suppose Jill Stein might be getting close, but she's still not a Marxist by a long shot.

Personally, I'm all for quite a lot of social engineering, but I'm not quite a communist per se either. I'm pretty much in line with Bernie on most things... although we have a few differences, too. I just don't think that the current financial structure of the country or even the world is even feasible going ahead into the future beyond a certain point -- mainly due to technological changes. I do think that the changes should be gradual, but change we must.
 
Last edited:
It's a classic case of the "Lost Tribe" school of political thought. That there is a vast hidden tribe of right wing voters who have not voted because the GOP has not nominated a candidate conservative enough. If the GOP would, the lost tribe would vote and sweep them to victory.
You have the same thing on the Democratic side: That there is a vast hidden tribe of Left Wing Voters who would come out if the Dems nominated a candidate far enough to the left. What has happened with Bernie pretty much shows how well that worked....

there's a stark difference in the 2 situations, though. No one likes Ted Cruz. His own family can't stand to be near him. Plus, when you look at the polling data, while Americans may like when their Congress critters talk a big game about pure Conservatism, no one really wants it to take effect. The philosophy itself pushes away voters.

Most people like Sanders and don't really disagree with what he says. Including Hillary

Hillary's victory is being propped up by 3 things:

1) Name recognition. she's been in the spotlight for 20+ years.

2) The idea of "voting strategically" ie voting for the person you think can win even if they don't really line up with your beliefs. Especially when the alternative is guano crazy with major fascist traits.

3) The DNC leadership is behind her. When the ref is wearing your jersey, you probably won't lose.

Granted, there is nothing to say that Sanders would win if the GOP wasn't such a poop show and the 2 leaders weren't loathed by 80% of the country. But if "what to do about trump" didn't lead every election story, this primary might loo ka little different.
 
It's a classic case of the "Lost Tribe" school of political thought. That there is a vast hidden tribe of right wing voters who have not voted because the GOP has not nominated a candidate conservative enough. If the GOP would, the lost tribe would vote and sweep them to victory.
You have the same thing on the Democratic side: That there is a vast hidden tribe of Left Wing Voters who would come out if the Dems nominated a candidate far enough to the left. What has happened with Bernie pretty much shows how well that worked....

The difference being is that right-wing/republican leaning voters turn up to vote in higher percentages than left-wing/democratic leaning voters. So there are more people out there to inspire (for lack of a better word) to get out there and vote Dem.
 
Last edited:
No... he's basically a centrist. As is Hillary. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to actually doing anything they're pretty darn centrist. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are what I'd call center-left. Far left would be communists or at least a more extreme version of socialism than what we see with Bernie.
No, like I said, he is realist. Single payer was simply not in the cards. For health reform to pass, literally every Democratic Senator (plus Joe Liberman) had to vote in favor. They were all willing to do so for the ACA. The same would not have been the case if it was single payer.

Bernie Sanders himself voted for the ACA (and the stimulus and Dodd Frank). Elizabeth Warren would have done the same thing if she was in the Senate at the time.
 
No, like I said, he is realist. Single payer was simply not in the cards. For health reform to pass, literally every Democratic Senator (plus Joe Liberman) had to vote in favor. They were all willing to do so for the ACA. The same would not have been the case if it was single payer.

Bernie Sanders himself voted for the ACA (and the stimulus and Dodd Frank). Elizabeth Warren would have done the same thing if she was in the Senate at the time.

Read it again. Supporting socialized medicine is a bare minimum for getting any votes at all in most countries in the world. That doesn't tend to recommend it as particularly left wing. Most places, it's sort of the default.

At the very least he should also have re-regulated prescription drug advertising to lower costs and refocus the pharmaceutical industry on drugs that actually do more than treat minor complaints. I'm not sure if that's properly called left wing or not though. Bill Clinton was the one that deregulated that. That's actually a fairly big factor in high health care costs.
 
Last edited:
Read it again. Supporting socialized medicine is a bare minimum for getting any votes at all in most countries in the world. That doesn't tend to recommend it as particularly left wing. Most places, it's sort of the default.

Part of the platform for UKIP the most right wing party in the UK, to get anyone elected in any position anyways, is for keeping the NHS. Reducing taxes to 40% on the wealthy, and supports a "simplified, streamlined welfare system". That's right UKIP is, in many ways, to the left of the Republican party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party
 
Read it again. Supporting socialized medicine is a bare minimum for getting any votes at all in most countries in the world. That doesn't tend to recommend it as particularly left wing.
And most countries don't have a radical right wing major party that is completely opposed to the idea and votes unanimously against it.

You're suggesting that Obama is a centrist to right winger because he got something done that was possible rather than being ideologically pure and getting nothing. That is simply nonsense. By your logic Bernie Sanders is the same since he voted for the same bills that Obama signed.
 
And most countries don't have a radical right wing major party that is completely opposed to the idea and votes unanimously against it.

You're suggesting that Obama is a centrist to right winger because he got something done that was possible rather than being ideologically pure and getting nothing. That is simply nonsense. By your logic Bernie Sanders is the same since he voted for the same bills that Obama signed.

Nope. I'm saying that wanting socialized medicine by itself isn't particularly left wing. It's actually pretty centrist. I think anybody in their right mind should realize that if the government is paying MORE for health care as things are than countries that have socialized medicine, it's pretty much a no-brainer and shouldn't depend upon your overall political philosophy. The right wing deficit hawks should want it just as badly.

Of course, I know that isn't the case, but it isn't because of the right/left spectrum. It's mostly because we waited too long to do it, and we've got powerful corporations who profit from the system as it stands.
 
Last edited:
Nope. I'm saying that wanting socialized medicine by itself isn't particularly left wing. It's actually pretty centrist.
Ok, please explain how Obama could have got left wing things accomplished in the United States. Or how Bernie Sanders could if by some miracle he wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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