Should Bernie Sanders be holding a political office

[Terese]

When you're a communist that's the only religion allowed. But, who said he's smart -- just because people are dumb enough to vote you in doesn't mean you're useful. For a guy with so much hype he doesn't have very many accomplishments to his name. I hope he hangs up his hat -- time to retire to the crusty old commie paradise he's looking for. If we're lucky he'll die by the elections, so it won't matter.

If you think Bernie is preaching communism, then i can assume you don't want America to be an equitable egalitarian country, something that would be greatly beneficial for all citizens.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Politicians should be required to retire at a certain age. Time for new faces and ideas.

PM Modi puts the age at 75, and I am sure he would pass on the office on the day before he turns 75. He is 69 at the moment. He will do the 2024 elections before retiring, he know he is a potent vote-catching force for his party. Then he will join the ranks of 'Marga Darshaks' (Mentors - lit: showers of the way, consult if you need to).

 

[Mindmaster]

If you think Bernie is preaching communism, then i can assume you don't want America to be an equitable egalitarian country, something that would be greatly beneficial for all citizens.

You're right, because there is no such thing as equality. I prefer equality of opportunity (which we already have), versus equality of outcome. (Which means the worthless mouth-breathers get as much as those whom work their fingers to the bone.)

Some people are stupid, some aren't. Some are good at making money, some aren't, etc. Pick any category you want and someone will always have it better than someone else, but not because they stole it -- because they're worth it.

If equality is overly enforced all it really does is yoke the potential of the exceptional people to the do-nothings and bottom feeders.

 

[Terese]

You're right, because there is no such thing as equality. I prefer equality of opportunity (which we already have), versus equality of outcome. (Which means the worthless mouth-breathers get as much as those whom work their fingers to the bone.)

Some people are stupid, some aren't. Some are good at making money, some aren't, etc. Pick any category you want and someone will always have it better than someone else, but not because they stole it -- because they're worth it.

If equality is overly enforced all it really does is yoke the potential of the exceptional people to the do-nothings and bottom feeders.

The idea that hard work grants one opportunity is mostly a myth. America doesn't have equality of opportunity. Do the poor have the same equal opportunity as the rich? No. There are "rags to riches" stories that exist, but they are very uncommon.

The poor aren't poor because they are "worthless mouth-breathers" but because they were born poor/had an unfortunate financial incident. Keeping poor people poor is something i find greatly abhorent, whether they are lazy or not.

Also, there are people who were born into fortune that have never worked a day in their life. Are they also "worthless mouth-breathers"?

I'm against equality being "overly enforced". Again, Bernie is not communist. He is a democratic socialist, which is different.

 

[Shad]

Given his own statement , since he's on record as saying a person with a typical classic Christian views should not hold any office or be appointed to any government position, namely the classic views of the Evangelical and scholarly institution Wheaton College.

Or should he at least apologize for his bad judgement? How can he even govern (in his own view) such people.

Should but he wont. He is just the flip side of those that think Muslims can never be in government. He is using a religious bias as he has no evidence of conduct bias. Ergo a smear

 

[PureX]

Given his own statement , since he's on record as saying a person with a typical classic Christian views should not hold any office or be appointed to any government position, namely the classic views of the Evangelical and scholarly institution Wheaton College.

Or should he at least apologize for his bad judgement? How can he even govern (in his own view) such people.

Why? He's right. If these zealots had any integrity they would not seek positions of public representation when they know they are unwilling to represent the will of the people. But they are so keen on forcing everyone else to comply with their own ideology that they not only seek out positions of authority in a representational democracy, they then do everything they can to abuse those positions to force their ideology on everyone else. They are, in effect, traitors and saboteurs to our democracy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should but he wont. He is just the flip side of those that think Muslims can never be in government. He is using a religious bias as he has no evidence of conduct bias. Ergo a smear

Not the case at all. If a Muslim went around preaching publicly to cut the head off of infidels and used the Quran to justify this he would be excluded from that job too.

One is allowed to believe whatever that person wants to believe. It is what one says and what one does that can make one fail at getting a position or losing a position that one already has. In short, one can be told he can't have a job if that person acts like a jerk and blames his holy book.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Why? He's right. If these zealots had any integrity they would not seek positions of public representation when they know they are unwilling to represent the will of the people. But they are so keen on forcing everyone else to comply with their own ideology that they not only seek out positions of authority in a representational democracy, they then do everything they can to abuse those positions to force their ideology on everyone else. They are, in effect, traitors and saboteurs to our democracy.

Someone believing John 3 should not hold office? That''s coo coo for cocoa puffs.

 

[Sunstone]

Why? He's right. If these zealots had any integrity they would not seek positions of public representation when they know they are unwilling to represent the will of the people. But they are so keen on forcing everyone else to comply with their own ideology that they not only seek out positions of authority in a representational democracy, they then do everything they can to abuse those positions to force their ideology on everyone else. They are, in effect, traitors and saboteurs to our democracy.

Well said.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not the case at all. If a Muslim went around preaching publicly to cut the head off of infidels and used the Quran to justify this he would be excluded from that job too.

One is allowed to believe whatever that person wants to believe. It is what one says and what one does that can make one fail at getting a position or losing a position that one already has. In short, one can be told he can't have a job if that person acts like a jerk and blames his holy book.

Article VI of the constitution strictly forbids making a religious test for office or a position of government trust.

Not sure how you are connecting the classic Christian view of John 3 of God loving the world so much he gave His only Son that they might not perish should they turn to Him with terrorism, but as an atheist you have your own bias, as a postmodernist Bernie has his own bias as well.

 

[Sunstone]

The idea that hard work grants one opportunity is mostly a myth. America doesn't have equality of opportunity. Do the poor have the same equal opportunity as the rich? No. There are "rags to riches" stories that exist, but they are very uncommon.

The poor aren't poor because they are "worthless mouth-breathers" but because they were born poor/had an unfortunate financial incident. Keeping poor people poor is something i find greatly abhorent, whether they are lazy or not.

Also, there are people who were born into fortune that have never worked a day in their life. Are they also "worthless mouth-breathers"?

I'm against equality being "overly enforced". Again, Bernie is not communist. He is a democratic socialist, which is different.

Spot on. Some people seek refuge in the myth of an America that never was. That is, an America that is a land of endless opportunity where everyone always gets exactly what they deserve.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Spot on. Some people cannot live in reality and instead must seek refuge in the myth of an America that never was.

Jesus who was rich, became poor that we might be rich in God.

It's all over the Psalms
The blessed but poor man:
Adjacent psalms that tell a story part 10 - A blessed man who is al…

 

[Sunstone]

Given his own statement , since he's on record as saying a person with a typical classic Christian views should not hold any office or be appointed to any government position, namely the classic views of the Evangelical and scholarly institution Wheaton College.

Or should he at least apologize for his bad judgement? How can he even govern (in his own view) such people.

Are you talking about the exchange between Sanders and Russell Vought?

 

[whirlingmerc]

The idea that hard work grants one opportunity is mostly a myth. America doesn't have equality of opportunity. Do the poor have the same equal opportunity as the rich? No. There are "rags to riches" stories that exist, but they are very uncommon.

The poor aren't poor because they are "worthless mouth-breathers" but because they were born poor/had an unfortunate financial incident. Keeping poor people poor is something i find greatly abhorent, whether they are lazy or not.

Also, there are people who were born into fortune that have never worked a day in their life. Are they also "worthless mouth-breathers"?

I'm against equality being "overly enforced". Again, Bernie is not communist. He is a democratic socialist, which is different.

Perhaps he should examine Jesus views which he was attacking (John 3 being what Wheaton College, the Alma Matter of Billy Graham and the individual being questioned regarding his faith)

An careful examination of John 3 by DA Carson

 

[whirlingmerc]

so...?

so... Bernie is in disagreement with Jesus just not brave enough to say so

 

[whirlingmerc]

Are you talking about the exchange between Sanders and Russell Vought?

It was not merely between Sanders and an individual, it was concerning a beliefe of Wheaton College under discussion which directly quoted John 3 and Jesus

Bernie is Biblically illiterate as he rushed in without realizing
Or did he? Sadly maybe he knew exacly what he was doing, attacking the Chrisitan faith and founder.

 

[Sunstone]

Bernie is Biblically illiterate as he rushed in without realizing
Or did he? Sadly maybe he knew exacly what he was doing, attacking the Chrisitan faith and founder.

We live in an age of paranoia, bad faith, gratuitous anger, and petty accusations. Other than that, I am sure it makes sense to accuse Sanders of "attacking the Chrisitan [sic] faith and founder".

 

[Phaedrus]

Donny is 1,000,000 worse insulting people. He does it continuously and indiscriminately.

I hope I'm more like him when I get up there in that age range. Why would I want to be a boring nancy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone believing John 3 should not hold office? That''s coo coo for cocoa puffs.

Yes, if Bernie said that you would have a case. He did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Article VI of the constitution strictly forbids making a religious test for office or a position of government trust.

Not sure how you are connecting the classic Christian view of John 3 of God loving the world so much he gave His only Son that they might not perish should they turn to Him with terrorism, but as an atheist you have your own bias, as a postmodernist Bernie has his own bias as well.

That you have to continually distort what Bernie did indicates some strange and unjustified hatred of the man. Hmmm, didn't Jesus supposedly say something about loving your brother as yourself?