Well said..since the general public represents differing politics and feelings about policy shouldn't we have a government/congress that is more bi partisan instead of one way or the highway, that will never get anything done as you say.
The whole appeal of Sanders for me is that he is not like everyone else. And that he truly believes he can inspire others to join him in his fight. While he might trigger Dems in Congress from red states in the process, he still has the support of the general public (winning all popular votes/ # of donations/etc). If he does become moderate and compromises his stance to play politics with the Senate/House, I see no point in supporting him.
Bernie doesn't want the government to own the economic system. He doesn't want to eliminate capitalism. That is fear mongering bullshit. He doesn't want corporations and billionaires owning the government.
Wrong. Bernie is on record saying he would nationalize the renewable energy companies. That is socialism. Bernie is on record saying he wants a govt owned and operated single payer healthcare program. That is socialism. The trouble with Bernie is, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He keeps comparing his plans to the Nordic countries. So let's compare. Some of the Nortic countries are selling off their govt run businesses to private companies, such as the railroads. All the Nordic countries now offer the choice of the govt run health care or private coverage. Every country is seeing more of their people choosing private coverage over the govt run program. Because, they receive better and faster care. Bernie is so blind and out of touch. He does not know enough about his own plan to understand what he does not know about it.
Well, they failed to be white, for one thing, which was certainly careless on their parts. Also, perhaps donors perceived too much spine in them, too much of a record of making decisions that weren't always business-grovelling, whereas Pete strikes me as someone both willing to be and likely perceived as easily molded by moneyed interests. Why did they drop out early? Look at the narrative after (tiny, lily-white) Iowa and (tiny, lily-white) New Hampshire. I mean, Biden is practically DESIGNED to appeal there, but also should have to money to survive late into primary season, and yet he's already pretty much mortally wounded.
Why are people so scared of Sanders? He's just going to be PRESIDENT - how much of his socialist agenda can he really get implemented from that vantage point? Perhaps people are worried that he'll be accompanied by a democratic congress and senate and they'll show the same obeisance that the Repubs show Trump. But that seems pretty unlikely, and Sanders has certainly a long record (unlike Trump) of not exactly making huge waves.
He wouldn't think twice about putting private insurance companies out of business for his medicare for all. He and his side kicks, The Broad Squad that advocate The Green New Deal would certainly stifle business. Ive never heard Bernie in any of the debates talk about how he would help business, large and small other than raise taxes on them. I agree with Pete and Amy that he comes across like its his way or the highway not friendly at all with Corporate America, as he gets on his Lear Jet. H'es all about His Revolution and shouts it out much like the guys he admired Castro and Chavez.
Didn't make waves = Sanders did nothing while in Congress, except cash his checks. Sanders would be a lame duck president the minute he took office. Why waste 4 years on him?
They should find a way to address that for the next cycle. It does seem like a silly mistake. We need someone who can't be bought. Hey, how about a multi-billionaire? Not sure entirely the thrust of your comment, but I'd say Biden's collapse is exactly why they should have stayed in, at least until the first votes were cast. Any one of them could have gotten 'Klobmentum' after NH. barfo
It's either that or literally doing nothing. Ultimately, most politicians, even the very best intentioned, prefer to move things in the right direction (even if not as far as they wanted) rather than achieve nothing.
I completely agree with this. I'm scared of Sanders for what he won't get done, not for what he will. Our system is designed to thwart revolutionaries and reward incrementalists. barfo
He's operating partly outside of the system. When you are a star they let you do it. Bernie is not likely to be as lawless. barfo
It might be nice not to have somebody who's prepared to offer Clinton-esque "compromises" like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "Welfare Reform". Ask Labour voters how they feel about Tony Blair - it's almost as vitriolic as Margaret Thatcher. Pete strikes me as somebody who would have a Tony Blair poster on his wall.
Pretty much. Of all the candidates the Dems have brought forth (and they've basically all been bad this go-round), he's the worst. He appeals to a lot of people though because his goals all sound great. His plans to get there amount to bankruptcy and huge government ran everything and a new elite class of socialists (because that's what always comes with socialism). Least even if he got to be president most of his crap wouldn't go through unless maybe the dems tie their wagon to him like the gop has with trump.
I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the incrementalism of DADT might have gotten us to where we are now faster than an all-or-nothing approach would have. barfo
As someone from Britain, he sounds like post WWII Labour politicians. Trust me, the institutions built then, like the NHS, along with beloved govt. funded institutions like the BBC are far superior to free market alternatives, and nobody got rich off them.
But, it's not post-WWII in America now. It's pre-WWIII. We are not about building institutions, we are about setting fire to them so that the future invaders cannot seize them. "If you burn it, they will not come." barfo
