Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

The most interesting thing I have seen about Sanders lately was his 2003 co-sponsoring of a bill that would have not just jailed scientists for 10 years for human cloning, but also for conducting therapeutic cloning (SCNT) research.

....

Cosponsored? That's disturbing. Do you have a cite for that?

 

[The Don]

Cosponsored? That's disturbing. Do you have a cite for that?

Here's a Huffington Post article on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed/jail-for-stem-cell-resear_b_9335570.html

Bernie Sanders voted YES on “forbidding human cloning for...medical research. Voted to pass a bill that would... punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million.”

The specific bill is H.R.234— the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (Introduced in House) January 8, 2003, by Dave Weldon (R) of Florida.

Not only did Bernie Sanders give his support to this anti-science bill, but he is officially listed as a co-sponsor.

 

[Belz...]

I don't see it as buying access or influence. I think they give money to a candidate for the same reason I give money to a candidate. Because I feel sure I know how that candidate thinks and behaves and I know that they will already intend to support and make public policy that is more important to me than everything else she does while in office good or bad.

Except you don't give millions to them, personally.

 

[wareyin]

Please reflect on your response and try again, it really doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not being rude, I just really do not understand what you are trying to say.

A state that has been Red or Blue for the last three or four general election cycles, is probably going to be the same composition in 2016. Red or Blue are important because no matter which Red or Blue candidate wins their party's nomination will most likely win the same Red or Blue states their party has carried for the last 2-3 election cycles. Swing states are states that frequently change from one party to the other which makes them important in General elections but largely irrelevant in the primaries unless you have a rational that would explain why one democratic candidate can win against all of the other party's candidates while the other democratic candidate couldn't win against all the other party's candidates (and weren't you the one saying that polls assessing such things are too inaccurate to trust?) Other than that traditionally red states that one candidate might be able to turn Blue that the other candidate might not be able to turn blue (or on the bad side might lose a blue state to a red candidate) Could be a benefit (or take-away) with regard to primary competitors.

So are you game?

Which Blues states that Hillary has won do you think Sanders can't win against Trump, Cruz or Kasich?

Which Red States that Hillary has won do you think that she can win in November that Sanders couldn't win as well?

I think Sanders can win every Blue State in November that Hillary has won so far in the Primaries, and I think Sanders can win the Red State of Alaska (and possibly Oklahoma) in November and I don't think Hillary could carry Alaska or Oklahoma in November.

Not big states not a huge difference what? +10 electoral votes total?

Like I said there are other states I feel good about but those primaries haven't happened yet.

I don't think you understand how this red state/blue state/swing state thing works. Red or blue States are those states that are considered strongholds for the party, and will almost surely vote Dem for blue States, and Rep for red States. This is basically no matter who the party nominates, so Sanders and Clinton would likely take the same blue States. It is those states that are possible to switch, called swing States, that are key to winning a presidency. Especially so with swing States with large delegate counts, such as Ohio and Florida. Sanders performed horribly on both those states, so I find it extremely unlikely that he would be able to carry them in the general.
As for your opinion that Sanders could actually turn a couple of red States blue, I seriously doubt it. For some reason, his supporters are seriously overestimating Sanders' level of support among the general population.

 

[Cobalt]

But you already know those are not his positions, I assume. I already know what Clinton's positions are as well. I don't believe she is beholden to donors. I do believe they buy access. But that's only a potential to influence. I think Clinton has been pro-women and pro-children, I believe she does care

Stop you there, no politician cares about anyone but themselves.

 

[The Don]

Stop you there, no politician cares about anyone but themselves.

I'm not sure that this statement stands up to scrutiny (unless you're going to say that someone who selflessly devotes themselves to the welfare of others is still only really caring about themselves ultimately - in which case that applies to everyone).

A majority of politicians I've had direct dealings with have at least some considerations for others and a few are/were genuinely public servants.

 

[d4m10n]

Possibly,...to put this in the proper perspective, remember, I still see a strong path for Bernie to keep Hillary from reaching 2,383 pledged delegates.

I don't confuse strong with easy, but there is still a viable path made largely by getting the types of turnouts that keep that path viable.

Does this path happen to involve getting hundreds of superdelegates to switch their allegiance?

 

[wareyin]

Possibly,...to put this in the proper perspective, remember, I still see a strong path for Bernie to keep Hillary from reaching 2,383 pledged delegates.

I don't confuse strong with easy, but there is still a viable path made largely by getting the types of turnouts that keep that path viable.

Candidates don't need 2,383 pledged delegates. That number is half of all pledged and super delegates. The majority of pledged delegates would be 2,026.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stop you there, no politician cares about anyone but themselves.

I think that's true for most of them, but I don't believe it's true for 100% of them. And a particular self interest, leaving one's mark on the world, can include interest in doing things that might also benefit the country.

 

[Brainster]

Mandating GMO bans, phasing out or eliminating nuclear power generation, discovering his hidden inner Zionist, there are actually a huge number of things that Sanders could do to lose my support, I'm supporting the public policies he's promoting, he came close to losing me because while he supports and promotes a carbon tax, it is weak and not revenue neutral.

I've got some bad news for you:

But there’s one major flaw in Bernie’s plan: Sanders is calling for a total phaseout of nuclear energy. He would place a moratorium on relicensing of the country’s aging nuclear power plants—from which we currently get about 20 percent of our electricity.

 

[luchog]

Sanders bumped off D.C. ballot
Excerpt:

The Vermont senator's name won't appear on the ballot because the party submitted the requisite paperwork one day too late, according to NBC's Washington affiliate, News4.

Again, someone "makes a mistake" that negatively impacts Sanders, but not Clinton. A few mistakes or examples of incompetence I can buy, that would be expected in any large organization. But these things seem to be happening with regularity and frequency that is starting to look highly suspect, particularly in an organization whose leaders have already openly declared support for Clinton.

Fortunately, there is a process in place for getting him on the ballot regardless of the "mistake".

 

[wareyin]

Sanders bumped off D.C. ballot
Excerpt:



Again, someone "makes a mistake" that negatively impacts Sanders, but not Clinton. A few mistakes or examples of incompetence I can buy, that would be expected in any large organization. But these things seem to be happening with regularity and frequency that is starting to look highly suspect, particularly in an organization whose leaders have already openly declared support for Clinton.

Fortunately, there is a process in place for getting him on the ballot regardless of the "mistake".

I doubt it was an act of malice, and as the primary isn't until Jun 14, it won't matter for him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

the problem could be resolved via an emergency vote of the D.C. City Council.
In a statement, the Sanders campaign said it expected to get on the ballot.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[kellyb]

Regarding the cloning thing, here's the language:

"The announcement of the birth of Dolly brought into sharp focus
the future possibility of cloning human beings along with all its inherent
moral, ethical, and legal implications. The National Bioethics
Advisory Commission (NBAC) was ordered to review the
legal and ethical issues involved in the cloning of human beings
and delivered its recommendations in June 1997. The NBAC
agreed that the creation of a child by somatic cell nuclear transfer
is scientifically and ethically objectionable because: 1) the efficiency
of nuclear transfer is so low and the chance of abnormal offspring
is so high that experimentation of this sort in humans was premature;
and 2) the cloning of an already existing human being may
have a negative impact on issues of personal and social well being
such as family relationships, identity and individuality, religious
beliefs, and expectations of sameness.1
Currently, no clear regulations exist in the United States that
would prevent a private group from attempting to clone a human
being."

https://www.congress.gov/108/crpt/hrpt18/CRPT-108hrpt18.pdf

They also differentiate it from this:

The word ‘‘cloning’’ can be used as a generic term
to describe several different techniques of cloning. Molecular
cloning refers to the copying of DNA fragments. For example, the
human gene for insulin has been cloned into bacteria to produce insulin
for the treatment of diabetes. In addition, human cells are
routinely cloned to study cancer or genetic diseases.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sanders bumped off D.C. ballot
Excerpt:



Again, someone "makes a mistake" that negatively impacts Sanders, but not Clinton. A few mistakes or examples of incompetence I can buy, that would be expected in any large organization. But these things seem to be happening with regularity and frequency that is starting to look highly suspect, particularly in an organization whose leaders have already openly declared support for Clinton.

Fortunately, there is a process in place for getting him on the ballot regardless of the "mistake".

But despite all these mistakes, you still cannot produce a single shred of evidence that a single one was foul play? It seems given the frequency, something would turn up.

 

[luchog]

But despite all these mistakes, you still cannot produce a single shred of evidence that a single one was foul play? It seems given the frequency, something would turn up.

Well, since none of them are wearing black cloaks and twirling handlebar mustaches, then I guess they're all just honest mistakes.

If none of them are deliberate, it's the most stunning display of outright political incompetence I've seen in my lifetime. It's a wonder the Dems managed to get anyone elected to anything.

Nothing to see here, move along.

:dl

As long as it benefits you and helps maintain the status quo, nothing to worry about, eh?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, since none of them are wearing black cloaks and twirling handlebar mustaches, then I guess they're all just honest mistakes.

If none of them are deliberate, it's the most stunning display of outright political incompetence I've seen in my lifetime. It's a wonder the Dems managed to get anyone elected to anything.

:dl

As long as it benefits you and helps maintain the status quo, nothing to worry about, eh?

That was a long-winded way of saying "no evidence"

 

[grunion]

Before any votes were cast there wasn't a single poll with evidence that Bernie would carry a single state (other than possibly New Hampshire and Vermont.) And not a single journalist gave the Mets a chance to win the National League pennant prior to the 2015 season.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, since none of them are wearing black cloaks and twirling handlebar mustaches, then I guess they're all just honest mistakes.

If none of them are deliberate, it's the most stunning display of outright political incompetence I've seen in my lifetime. It's a wonder the Dems managed to get anyone elected to anything.




:dl

As long as it benefits you and helps maintain the status quo, nothing to worry about, eh?

The absence of ANY evidence makes your case as strong as alien abductees where there is also a massive amount of similar claims without any evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

The absence of ANY evidence makes your case as strong as alien abductees where there is also a massive amount of similar claims without any evidence.

Presumably you hold Hillary's claims that she is the subject of a vast right wing conspiracy to the same standard?

Lolz