• 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

Skeptic Ginger said:
That's pure bull crap. You can cherry pick a few things, oh gee, she change her position on this or that.

If you look at Clinton's career, she's been consistent since she was in her 20s. People that don't know that are going by the headlines and talking points and not by the facts.
Click to expand...

That's bull crap, but, you are perfectly free to keep believing the lies you are telling yourself.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That's pure bull crap. You can cherry pick a few things, oh gee, she change her position on this or that.

If you look at Clinton's career, she's been consistent since she was in her 20s. People that don't know that are going by the headlines and talking points and not by the facts.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
 
Trakar said:
Yet another common trait with Hillary
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure why rigidly adhering to every point of view regardless of changes in available information, the candidate's own compass and societal views over a period of decades is deemed to be such a desirable trait in politicians.

I agree that if someone's position on a subject changes regularly, then they should come in for criticism but for someone's position to change gradually over a period of time - even to the opposing position - doesn't seem that reprehensible to me. Perhaps that's because my own personal view on a variety of points has changed over the last 30 years as I myself have changed from young, angry firebrand into the beaten shell of a man you see today. I used to be a member of the Socialist Workers' party in the 1980s, these days I'm probably right of centre on many matters (even in a UK that has veered to the right in that time). Those changes reflect how my own personal circumstances and priorities have changed over that period (a "starving" student is likely to have a different opinion regarding wealth than a comfortably-off middle class middle aged man) and certainly reflect how society has changed over that time.

There are some things where it is exceedingly unlikely that my views will change (I've always been anti-death penalty for example and my views on immigration and the EU are likely to remain the same) but on many other matters I'm open to reason (as I would hope a politician is).

Not only that but I've been allowed to come to my position on those subjects over a period of time. Politicians OTOH have to come to immediate conclusions based on partial information - expecting them to adhere to these hastily-reached positions is, IMO, unrealistic and unhelpful.

Hillary Clinton's views on gay rights and same sex marriage are, IMO, a good example of someone amending their position gradually in line with available information and social mores. Sure it would have been nicer if Hillary had been a trail-blazer in these areas but given her small-c conservative position on many matters that was unlikely but at least she has had the courage and sense to change her point of view rather than dogmatically sticking to her original position.

The same is true (if he is to be believed) of Trump's views. I don't mind that he is now anti-choice and suddenly very religious (although I profoundly disagree with those viewpoints) if that's really where his intellectual process has taken him. IMO he should be criticised for his views not that they have changed. Of course if her were suddenly to flip back on those points then allegations of flip-floppery would IMO be justified.
 
The Don said:
I'm still not sure why rigidly adhering to every point of view regardless of changes in available information, the candidate's own compass and societal views over a period of decades is deemed to be such a desirable trait in politicians.
Click to expand...

If you are voting for a candidate based upon their stated public policy views and perspectives, then it is probably a good idea to realize when these are positions of convenience just to get your vote and will likely change when they are talking to some who believes differently than you do and they want their vote as well. I know that Senator Sanders is unlikely to change his opinion about nuclear power, GMOs and other issues, I now know that I cannot support someone with those views. For a candidate like Clinton, however, where I never know what her position tomorrow is going to be based upon what she says today, I can likewise say that she is not worth my support. I will support a candidate who holds my view on public policy, but only if I know that they are going to reliably adhere to those agreed upon public policy stances.
 
Trakar said:
If you are voting for a candidate based upon their stated public policy views and perspectives, then it is probably a good idea to realize when these are positions of convenience just to get your vote and will likely change when they are talking to some who believes differently than you do and they want their vote as well. I know that Senator Sanders is unlikely to change his opinion about nuclear power, GMOs and other issues, I now know that I cannot support someone with those views. For a candidate like Clinton, however, where I never know what her position tomorrow is going to be based upon what she says today, I can likewise say that she is not worth my support. I will support a candidate who holds my view on public policy, but only if I know that they are going to reliably adhere to those agreed upon public policy stances.
Click to expand...

Clinton's stances have changed slowly, over decades, and you claim that because of this you can't support her as you never know what her position tomorrow is going to be based on what she says today.

Trump's stances change rapidly, even in the same speech to the same audience, and you claim that you would vote for him over Clinton.

Seems legit.
 
wareyin said:
Clinton's stances have changed slowly, over decades, and you claim that because of this you can't support her as you never know what her position tomorrow is going to be based on what she says today.

Trump's stances change rapidly, even in the same speech to the same audience, and you claim that you would vote for him over Clinton.

Seems legit.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me! :confused:
 
I live in a different world from that envisioned by ideological purists. I've mentioned before, and I have the credentials to prove it, that I'm further left, by far, than Bernie. But there's pragmatism to consider.

I see a political whore like Hillary and I'm content if not delighted that her positions have morphed. She's morphing in my direction, see? I'd imagine that Trump's supporters feel the same about the guy with the dead animal on his head.

I'll accept that Hillary was not ideologically pure on LGBT issues and same sex marriage. I'll accept that Bill and Hill have a large vein of Law & Order nonsense to them... as long as we can keep pushing them to the progressive or liberal position, by continuing to mobilize the left and leftish middle.

If the alternative is a party that has no hope in hell of winning, I'll stay with the Dems and fight the corporatist right from within. Voting Republican is not an option, not until some sensible Republicans take back their party from the troglodytes.
 
Trakar said:
If you are voting for a candidate based upon their stated public policy views and perspectives, then it is probably a good idea to realize when these are positions of convenience just to get your vote and will likely change when they are talking to some who believes differently than you do and they want their vote as well. I know that Senator Sanders is unlikely to change his opinion about nuclear power, GMOs and other issues, I now know that I cannot support someone with those views. For a candidate like Clinton, however, where I never know what her position tomorrow is going to be based upon what she says today, I can likewise say that she is not worth my support. I will support a candidate who holds my view on public policy, but only if I know that they are going to reliably adhere to those agreed upon public policy stances.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that changes in position are assumed purely for convenience and don't reflect genuine changes in opinion leaves no room for people to change over the course of decades (unless the rationale is that someone you "like" changes their mind for rational reasons and other people are simply pandering :rolleyes:).

I'd much rather have a pragmatist who is willing to revise their opinion than a dogmatist who feels obliged to cling onto their position regardless.....

As wareyin points out, there's a world of difference between a candidate who, like a cushion, bears the impression of the person who last sat on them - on some matters I feel Trump is like this - and something like Hillary's position of same sex marriage which has gradually changed.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I understand you will vote for him.

My questions was meant more along the lines of ... do you think he will still win and/or accomplish anything ?

Or is he done.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can say that I am a Maverick for Martin, however, he dropped out in January.

I will be redundant, and state what I wrote in a previous thread.

My first choice was Martin O'Malley. He is left of Clinton and right of Sanders, about where I fit in. Unfortunately, he has some "baggage" that can is summarized in this article: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/5...voting-n498256

It took me a few weeks to decide my second choice, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders may face challenges getting things passed through Congress, just as President Obama has experienced the past seven years.

It seems to me that many Republicans are becoming disillusioned with their Party. Because of this, there is a possibility that in 2018 there will be more Democrats than Republicans in both the House and the Senate. When this happens, Sanders (or Clinton) will have an easier time with promoting ideas.

I do admire Sanders' idealism, ethics, consistency, and ability to work with colleagues who have different points of view.

I don't claim to be a psychic, therefore, I do not know who will be the Democratic nominee.
 
Maya22 said:
I suppose you can say that I am a Maverick for Martin, however, he dropped out in January.

I will be redundant, and state what I wrote in a previous thread.

My first choice was Martin O'Malley. He is left of Clinton and right of Sanders, about where I fit in. Unfortunately, he has some "baggage" that can is summarized in this article: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/5...voting-n498256

It took me a few weeks to decide my second choice, Bernie Sanders.

Sanders may face challenges getting things passed through Congress, just as President Obama has experienced the past seven years.

It seems to me that many Republicans are becoming disillusioned with their Party. Because of this, there is a possibility that in 2018 there will be more Democrats than Republicans in both the House and the Senate. When this happens, Sanders (or Clinton) will have an easier time with promoting ideas.

I do admire Sanders' idealism, ethics, consistency, and ability to work with colleagues who have different points of view.

I don't claim to be a psychic, therefore, I do not know who will be the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I'm not psychic either, and I don't claim to know, but it does seem all but certain Bernie is done, barring an extraordinary event.
 
I was watching Bernie on TV last night

No skin in the game, but the geezer looked like he was going to keel over.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Your assumption is that changes in position are assumed purely for convenience and don't reflect genuine changes in opinion leaves no room for people to change over the course of decades (unless the rationale is that someone you "like" changes their mind for rational reasons and other people are simply pandering :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything, but it is curious timing that all of her changes of position seem to occur when she is campaigning for herself (or others) and her feet are being held to the fire over previous positions on the same subject.
I hold the candidates I "like" to the same standard, whether it is a change of position, or merely a newly revealed/discovered perspective that I strongly disagree with.

The Don said:
I'd much rather have a pragmatist who is willing to revise their opinion than a dogmatist who feels obliged to cling onto their position regardless.....
Click to expand...

I concur, if it is a well researched and thoughtfully contemplated decision that is then explained and based on more than the pragmatism which says I'm going to lose more votes with my current position than changing what I publically say to agree with what the majority of others are saying. This is especially troubling when a candidate has a long history of such convenient changes of opinion.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I live in a different world from that envisioned by ideological purists. I've mentioned before, and I have the credentials to prove it, that I'm further left, by far, than Bernie. But there's pragmatism to consider.

I see a political whore like Hillary and I'm content if not delighted that her positions have morphed. She's morphing in my direction, see? I'd imagine that Trump's supporters feel the same about the guy with the dead animal on his head...
Click to expand...

The difference is that you believe her opinions are actually morphing, I perceive that which smacks strongly of "strategery" and acting, to conceal her actual out-of-touch opinions and beliefs.
 
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