• 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 II

TheL8Elvis said:
Trakar said:
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.

Not that I wouldn't still support and respect the public policy, merely that his personal negatives would outweigh the benefit of supporting him personally.

This is rather the type of thing that happened with my support for Hillary after 2008.
Click to expand...

[/INDENT]

https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Trakar, if you addressed this, apologies, I missed it ...
Click to expand...


So, nuclear energy be damned. Go Bernie :rolleyes:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Look who only turns up when there is "good news" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess everyday you actually wake up, is a good news day, but I see Ben's name on posts most days (or at least most of the days I find time to stop by), here or elsewhere around this site.

btw what is it with teenage girls and all the eye-rolls?
 
Trakar said:
Seriously?! They wrote this article before they ever interviewed Senator Sanders, how often do you (or any other Democratic voter) pay heed and attention to anything in the NY Daily News?

At least when I quote sources I quote moderate or good solid progressive sources not conservative fishwrap. But then I guess that's to be expected from a conservative-lite Hillary fangirl.
Click to expand...

I think you may want to check your facts there.

The WA Post commentary: April 5 at 12:23 PM

The interview transcript: Monday, April 4, 2016, 4:17 PM

Not to mention Capehart quotes directly from the interview. It's an interview, it's a transcript, what do you find fault with in the source, fanboy ;)?
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
So, nuclear energy be damned. Go Bernie :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'll wait till I get a response, from him or his surrogates, but I have sent him a six page letter along with both my verifiable CV and my latest donation to his campaign, explaining my understandings and position on advanced, IV/V gen nuclear power research, development and deployment/integration into U.S. energy supply, asking for his specific response to that.

If I get no response within 6-9 weeks I will cease donating to his campaign and cease supporting him or his campaign publically and privately. As I stated previously, I have no problem with strict regulation and oversight of the nuclear power industry, to include the refusal to re-license any and all current II-III+ gen reactors that are dangerous or deficient in design or function (e.g. the Indian Point plant in NY), but any plan to ban or eliminate nuclear power generation entirely is broad-stroke short-sighted and foolish in my considered opinion, and I won't support a foolish presidential campaign or administration
(which is why I could never vote for Hillary).

If I get a response, I will evaluate it and respond appropriately
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think you may want to check your facts there.

The WA Post commentary: April 5 at 12:23 PM

The interview transcript: Monday, April 4, 2016, 4:17 PM

Not to mention Capehart quotes directly from the interview. It's an interview, it's a transcript, what do you find fault with in the source, fanboy ;)?
Click to expand...

You mean aside from context and source, not much, but then without full context and reliable sources (which is neither the WA Post or NY Daily editorials).
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
You mean aside from context and source, not much, but then without full context and reliable sources (which is neither the WA Post or NY Daily editorials).
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I posted a link to the transcript and a recording of the interview. What context is missing from that?
 
Trakar said:
I'll wait till I get a response, from him or his surrogates, but I have sent him a six page letter along with both my verifiable CV and my latest donation to his campaign, explaining my understandings and position on advanced, IV/V gen nuclear power research, development and deployment/integration into U.S. energy supply, asking for his specific response to that.

If I get no response within 6-9 weeks I will cease donating to his campaign and cease supporting him or his campaign publically and privately. As I stated previously, I have no problem with strict regulation and oversight of the nuclear power industry, to include the refusal to re-license any and all current II-III+ gen reactors that are dangerous or deficient in design or function (e.g. the Indian Point plant in NY), but any plan to ban or eliminate nuclear power generation entirely is broad-stroke short-sighted and foolish in my considered opinion, and I won't support a foolish presidential campaign or administration
(which is why I could never vote for Hillary).

If I get a response, I will evaluate it and respond appropriately
Click to expand...

The campaign will be over in 6-9 weeks, one way or the other.

And despite a double digit win for Sanders, it is still extremely likely with NY, PA, and MD all favoring Clinton that this will be all but over in 3 weeks.
 
luchog said:
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".
Click to expand...

Confirmation bias is a heck of a thing.
 
Trakar said:
I'll wait till I get a response, from him or his surrogates, but I have sent him a six page letter along with both my verifiable CV and my latest donation to his campaign, explaining my understandings and position on advanced, IV/V gen nuclear power research, development and deployment/integration into U.S. energy supply, asking for his specific response to that.

If I get no response within 6-9 weeks I will cease donating to his campaign and cease supporting him or his campaign publically and privately. As I stated previously, I have no problem with strict regulation and oversight of the nuclear power industry, to include the refusal to re-license any and all current II-III+ gen reactors that are dangerous or deficient in design or function (e.g. the Indian Point plant in NY), but any plan to ban or eliminate nuclear power generation entirely is broad-stroke short-sighted and foolish in my considered opinion, and I won't support a foolish presidential campaign or administration
(which is why I could never vote for Hillary).

If I get a response, I will evaluate it and respond appropriately
Click to expand...


However efficient or safe a nuclear power plant may be, there will always be the problem of storing the waste for a lot longer than any civilisation has ever managed to survive. What's wrong with decentralised renewable energy technologies being a preferable method of providing electricity locally for much of the required energy in homes and small businesses? (ETA: transmission of electricity to large consumers, i.e. heavy industry, in awkward localities might be required, but again renewable technologies such as more efficient solar generation in sunny areas or tidal power generators would be part of the mix. If the huge subsidies enjoyed over decades by the nuclear industry had been invested in renewables, the technology would be far more advanced than we have already.)

I see no point in these very expensive and highly centralised complex technologies that still need mining, processing and transportation of radioactive materials, and their long term legacies of radioactive waste.

Your insistence that Sanders must buy into that particular technology or you will dump all of his social responsibility programs seems perverse.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Well I've been saying for a while that, although the message of Bernie is appealing, at least to many, he doesn't appear to have a clear plan of action.
Click to expand...

Bernie's positions are very appealing to me, being the farthest left of any of the candidates. But I've sort of thrown in the towel. When he exhorted the crowd in Seattle with "No More War!" (after the mudlark of peace landed on the podium), my reaction was that I thought I was supposed to be watching a campaign for the highest office in the land, not the Miss South Carolina Platitude Q&A portion of Miss America.

The Daily News has actually been pro-Sanders, somewhat. Well, in the 2016 version of "pro-Sanders" which really means "anti-Hillary". The point here is that it's an interview. It's been picked up by a number of members of the more liberal/progressive media. And Bernie's had five days to actually counter, but he's not returning calls. The answers were muddy. If he couldn't explain his plans for dismantling the big banks without going back to the office for some papers, that's pretty sad.
 
Trakar said:
I'll wait till I get a response, from him or his surrogates, but I have sent him a six page letter along with both my verifiable CV and my latest donation to his campaign, explaining my understandings and position on advanced, IV/V gen nuclear power research, development and deployment/integration into U.S. energy supply, asking for his specific response to that.

If I get no response within 6-9 weeks I will cease donating to his campaign and cease supporting him or his campaign publically and privately. As I stated previously, I have no problem with strict regulation and oversight of the nuclear power industry, to include the refusal to re-license any and all current II-III+ gen reactors that are dangerous or deficient in design or function (e.g. the Indian Point plant in NY), but any plan to ban or eliminate nuclear power generation entirely is broad-stroke short-sighted and foolish in my considered opinion, and I won't support a foolish presidential campaign or administration
(which is why I could never vote for Hillary).

If I get a response, I will evaluate it and respond appropriately
Click to expand...

I thought it would be much simpler, since you stated eliminating nuclear power would lose your support, and his policy page clearly states that is his intention.

As wareyin pointed out, it may be effectively over before we even reach 6-9 weeks. From here, it appears as if you made up a number to give you an "out" to continue supporting him until his inability to win the nomination becomes undeniable.
 
Looks like the Clinton campaign is getting desperate again, dredging up old lies and trying to sell them as the truth: A Clinton Superdelegate Just Admitted That Hillary Lied About Bernie and Guns
Excerpt:
Hillary Clinton is apparently getting desperate, as after seeming to exhaust all other options, she’s returning to the original line of attack against Bernie Sanders: gun control.

“She said that it’s going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont,” according to New York State Sen. Tim Kennedy. “That’s the first I heard it,” he remarked.

That’s probably because it’s not even close to true.

Out of the 7,686 firearms recovered and traced in New York in 2014, only 55 were first purchased in Vermont, according to the ATF. In 2013, that number was 61 out of 8,539. As such, Vermont accounts for less than 1% of the total guns traced in either year, despite Vermont bordering New York.
Click to expand...


I particularly like how even her supporters are backpedaling on this one:
Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, an outspoken Clinton supporter and a superdelegate pledged to support her, didn’t hesitate to throw her under the bus for her callous mischaracterization of his state. “It is campaign season; therefore, things are sometimes said by all the candidates that sometimes aren’t entirely accurate,” he said. He went on to note that heroin used in Vermont is primarily brought over from other states, New York in particular.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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