• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bernie Sanders Running for US President

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
Since he's running on the Democratic ticket, I don't think there's going to be any chance of him "stealing" votes from Clinton.
From what he's said, I don't think he'll run as an independent if he loses the primary; he'll most likely just go back to the Senate.
He's stated that he chose to run as a Democrat because he isn't willing to take PAC funds (and God knows the rich sponsors aren't going to support him), and this gives him the largest platform and gets him onto the ballot in all 50 states.

I'll support him and will most likely vote for him in the primary.
 
The problem is that the media want to peg everyone as stereotypically liberal or conservative.
They don't know what to do with pro-gay marriage pro-civil liberties uber-wealthy capitalists,
so they get the ill fitting label "conservative".
Claiming they're "pro-gay" is just something the Kochs and their defenders do to deflect criticism and distance themselves from "conservatism." Meanwhile they have no qualms backing social conservatives when those conservatives are willing to implement libertarian economic policies.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Claiming they're "pro-gay" is just something the Kochs and their defenders do to deflect criticism and distance themselves from "conservatism." Meanwhile they have no qualms backing social conservatives when those conservatives are willing to implement libertarian economic policies.
Why doubt that they believe what they say?
Everyone believed Obama & the Clintons when they finally & conveniently "evolved"
to support gay marriage. (They finally became as liberal as the Koch Bros.)
Even Dick Cheney was ahead of the curve on this one.

Consider that they fund the Cato Institute, which is pro-gay marriage.
The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage | Cato Institute
So if they're faking it, they should consider what Kurt Vonnegut has to say in Mother Night....
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
 
Last edited:
Why doubt that they believe what they say?
Everyone believed Obama & the Clintons when they finally & conveniently "evolved"
to support gay marriage. (They finally became as liberal as the Koch Bros.)
I'm not just thinking about folks who have gone back on their word on social issues. Do you seriously think the Kochs give a damn if a candidate opposes gay marriage, so long as they are as economically conservative as possible? I promise you, they don't. They have their eyes on one thing: $$$$.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not just thinking about folks who have gone back on their word on social issues. Do you seriously think the Kochs give a damn if a candidate opposes gay marriage, so long as they are as economically conservative as possible? I promise you, they don't. They have their eyes on one thing: $$$$.
I don't have a window into their souls (having never been their landlord), so I can only go by what they do. To support The Cato Institute, The institute For Justice (I belong to both), gay marriage, improved employment rights for convicts who served their sentences, etc, etc, is to do things I like. Sometimes they'll support conservatives with a mixed record on such goals, but all candidates are a compromise.
After all, how many posters here opposed the 2 Mid East wars, but would vote for Hillary the hawk if she ran? Even when I vote for Libertarians, I disagree with my candidates on some matters. It's complitcated, eh?
 

Wirey

Fartist
Why doubt that they believe what they say?
Everyone believed Obama & the Clintons when they finally & conveniently "evolved"
to support gay marriage. (They finally became as liberal as the Koch Bros.)
Even Dick Cheney was ahead of the curve on this one.

Consider that they fund the Cato Institute, which is pro-gay marriage.
The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage | Cato Institute
So if they're faking it, they should consider what Kurt Vonnegut has to say in Mother Night....
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

I literally just reread that on Tuesday.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"But quietly—at least relative to his wonk-laden sermons on economic populism—Sanders has for years also been one of the Senate's fiercest critics of the National Security Agency's secretive surveillance operations. And, unlike Hillary Clinton, he's been remarkably clear about where he stands.

The Vermont independent, who officially announced his White House bid on Thursday, is widely viewed by Beltway types as more of a debate-stage prop to bounce liberal ideas off Clinton on her march toward an inevitable Democratic primary victory. Polling has routinely placed Sanders in the single digits among Democratic voters. But while progressives are hopeful he can serve as an Elizabeth Warren surrogate and challenge Clinton on Wall Street reform, Sanders' candidacy also offers an opportunity to force Clinton to talk more concretely about domestic surveillance—something he has not minced words about since the Edward Snowden disclosures began in 2013.

"Kids will grow up knowing that every damn thing that they do is going to be recorded some place in a file, and I think that will have a very Orwellian and very inhibiting impact on the way we live our lives," Sanders told MSNBC's Chris Hayes just days after the initial batch of Snowden files emerged. "I want our law enforcement people to be vigorous in going after terrorists. But I happen to believe they can do that without disregarding the Constitution of the United States or the civil liberties of the American people."

President Bernie Sanders Would Dismantle NSA Spying - NationalJournal.com
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"The Affordable Care Act is a step forward toward universal health care, but it is imperfect, and so I voted for it but without strongly endorsing it. I have long believed that health care is a right of every citizen -- every citizen -- and that the best way to achieve a strong and fair health care system is through a Medicare-for-all, single payer system. I have consistently introduced, and strongly supported, legislation to establish a single-payer approach to health care."

"I favor ending the payroll tax reduction, which was instituted as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy, because over the long term it will weaken the Social Security Trust Fund. I favor removing the cap on payroll taxes for those earning over $250,000 a year, because doing so would guarantee that all Social Security benefits could be paid for the next 75 years. I believe, I stated earlier, that the wealthy and corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes."

"I believe that most concerns about ownership, purchase and possession of guns is best addressed at the state level. As a senator, I believe in deferring this question to the states."

"Q: Please explain in a total of 100 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.

A: Reversing the decline of the middle class, which is in good measure due to outsourcing of American jobs and an unfair tax code which has greatly reduced taxes on the wealthy while their share of both the nation's wealth and its income have soared dramatically,

Reducing global warming and creating new, good-paying jobs by investing in sustainable energy and energy efficiency.

Bringing transparency to the banking industry, to the Federal Reserve, and to military contracting."

Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System
 

dust1n

Zindīq
On a more surface level, the guy just doesn't seem very presidential. He's smart and I agree with him on lots of things, but he just doesn't give off that inspiring...thing...that Presidents need to have to make people confident in him and give them hope for the future. If he can become more polished and does well in the primary debates, he might have a shot. If not he's just going to come off as a grumpy miser.

True. It's hard to call Clinton and Cruz less inspiring than Bernie Sanders...

 

dust1n

Zindīq
"The two most recent polls from Iowa offer an interesting contrast in how the field shapes up with and without Warren. In both cases, sure, Hillary Clinton is crushing everyone. But who at least can break double digits against her? In a Loras College poll from last week that includes both Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, Clinton takes 57 percent to Warren’s 15, with Biden at 6 and Sanders at 2. A PPP poll from this week, though, excludes Warren and Biden. (The conventional read on Biden, for what it’s worth, is that he’d jump in if Hillary Clinton imploded and had to drop out. The conventional read on Hillary Clinton is that there is no scandal imaginable that could persuade her to drop out. So.) In this Warren-less, Biden-less survey that more accurately resembles the look of the probable Democratic field, Clinton wins 62 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers. Bernie Sanders comes in second place with 14 percent, followed by the Baltimore Healer with 6.

Fourteen percent is far less than 62 percent — specifically it is 48 percentage points less, my insider sources tell me — but a decent enough base for a candidate like Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has nothing to lose and issues of great importance to promote, to examine and think, **** it, I’ll give it a try. Last month, word got out that he was wavering on the possibility of running. But if he can start polling in the double-digits and persuade the well-funded progressive groups to turn to him once they’ve given up on their Draft Warren fantasies, then why not? If someone out there can consolidate the anti-Clinton vote, why shouldn’t it be Bernie?"

Lefties, meet your candidate: Why Bernie Sanders is the only authentic alternative to Hillary Clinton - Salon.com
 

dust1n

Zindīq
BernieAlbumCover.jpg
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"The self-proclaimed democratic socialist's team said he's raised $1.5 million dollars in his pursuit of the Democratic nomination in 2016.

This puts him ahead of other notable presidential candidates who have disclosed first-day donations, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

One name is conspicuously missing from the list: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has not released her first-day haul. However the Democratic front-runner is a proven fundraiser is dominating in the polls testing the race.

Sanders' fundraising came mostly from small donors. According to The Washington Post, the average donation was $43.54, with about 35,000 supporters contributing. Campaign advisers predicted that Sanders may be able to raise about $50 million in similar donations during the primary."

Bernie Sanders says he's raised $1.5 million in one day - Business Insider
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
I don't think he has a chance but I welcome lots of candidates and I prefer a wide field over just two establishment types. In this case the Dems are the embarrassment only having one annointed phony, so I like to see her (Hillary) challenged. And unlike Liz who i think is on meds and lacking basic communication skills, even though I am against this guy in most everything, he is intelligent and not a phony like so many others. He says what he is, a socialist, so he is not a phony regarding what he is.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Some news which might (very slightly) help Bernie get the nod....
News from The Associated Press
Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton's honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring and likable? Only a minority think so.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
You know, I think it would actually be a pretty interesting race if Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders got the nominations. Of course hell would have to freeze over for that to happen. It's next to impossible to get a libertarian or a socialist, let alone both.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Some news which might (very slightly) help Bernie get the nod....
News from The Associated Press


"Unlike Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders didn't use a splashy, big-budget video to announce his campaign. Instead, the Vermont senator opted for a series of one-on-one television interviews Wednesday followed by a low-key launch event outside the US Capitol Thursday morning. "I believe that in a democracy, what elections are about are serious debates over serious issues," he said Thursday. "Not political gossip, not making campaigns into soap operas. This is not the Red Sox vs. the Yankees. This is the debate over major issues facing the American people."

Pundits are already dismissing Sanders—who has, in the past, described himself as a socialist rather than a Democrat—as a long-shot candidate with little chance of defeating Clinton for the Democrats' 2016 nomination. But Sanders is already beating Clinton on one metric: answering questions from the press.

Earlier this week, National Journal's Zach Cohen counted all of the times Clinton has answered press questions since she announced her presidential campaign on April 12. Cohen counted just seven "answers"—about half of which ignored the actual question. When asked about whether a super-PAC would support her campaign, she said, "I don't know." When she was quizzed about her chances in Iowa, she said "I'm having a great time, can't look forward any more than I am."

Sanders, who needs all the press attention he can get, kicked off his presidential campaign by fielding a barrage of questions from TV news reporters in interviews Wednesday. Over the course of one five-minute exchange with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday, Sanders answered seven separate questions. The trend continued at Sanders' campaign launch event Thursday morning, when he took six more questions."

Bernie Sanders Has Already Taken More Press Questions Than Hillary Clinton | Mother Jones
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I think Sanders entering the coronation.... er "race" for the Democrat nod is hilarious. He could be more problematic for Hill Hill than the Republican de jour.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I think Sanders entering the coronation.... er "race" for the Democrat nod is hilarious. He could be more problematic for Hill Hill than the Republican de jour.

Just food for thought.

"I am obligated by law to point out that Sanders’ chances of beating Hillary Clinton are slight, but the question many have already raised is what effect his candidacy will have on Clinton. Will it pull her to the left? Give her room to run to the right? Force her into missteps? It might do any of those things, or none of them.

But Sanders could actually cause more headaches for the Republicans running for president — if he succeeds on focusing the campaign on his area of interest.

To understand why, you first have to know that Sanders’ candidacy will be almost entirely about economic issues. Advocacy for the interests of what we might call the non-wealthy has always been at the top of Sanders’ agenda and at the heart of his political identity. That’s the reason he’s finally running now, at the tail end of a long career: the national debate has moved in his direction, with issues like wage stagnation and inequality now being brought up even by some conservatives...

They’ll all have their economic plans, of course, and will be happy to tell you why they’re superior. But the current debate on the economy puts them at a disadvantage. They know that they’re at odds with the public on many economic issues, like the minimum wage, paid vacation time, or increasing taxes on the wealthy. Though they’ve begun to talk about inequality, it’s obvious that they haven’t quite figured out how to address the issue without running up against their traditional advocacy for things like cutting upper-income taxes and reducing regulations on corporations and Wall Street.

When Sanders says, “We need an economy that works for all of us and not just for a handful of billionaires,” few voters disagree. Republicans say they want that, too, but the fact that some specific billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers are so eagerly bankrolling their campaigns makes it an awkward argument for them to make.

And Sanders will draw attention to the billionaires funding Republican campaigns: At his presser today, he was asked about donations to the Clinton Foundation, and he pushed back by asking: Where are the conflicts of interests when the Koch brothers are spending hundreds of millions to influence the outcome of the presidential race? In other words, Sanders won’t only attack Clinton on the money question; he’ll helpfully point out that GOP attacks on this are rather questionable, given their own funding sources.

The best outcome for Republicans is if the campaign revolves around other issues where they might find more support for their positions and they can more easily attack Hillary Clinton. The more attention Bernie Sanders gets, the more attention economic inequality gets, which is something Republicans would rather avoid."

Bernie Sanders’ presidential run really matters. Here’s why. - The Washington Post
 
Top