Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

While this is true, electing someone closer to your own views is always going to be better, because they'll move the conversation. Bernie might not be able to accomplish all that he wants, but he can at least shift the conversation further to the left on those issues.

Not true at all. Sometimes you can choose the wrong time, be seen as incredibly ineffectual because you get nothing done, and then have a huge backlash in elections that damage your party or set back the very idea of such a candidate again for generations. Which is precisely the scenario I believe would play out for Bernie given the gridlock in Washington and how he'd get nothing passed, despite promising ridiculously lofty unattainable shit to his supporters.

And what he can actually do is a good argument for voting Bernie for me. He's more likely to nominate justices that are further left than Hillary's appointees would be. And the biggest argument is on foreign policy.

And how would he get them through confirmation? Another brick wall.

I'd much rather have a non-interventionist like Bernie who wants to keep America out of wars and avoid putting soldiers into harms way than a hawk like Hillary Clinton. I'd consider foreign policy to be the biggest reason to support Bernie over Hillary, based on what the President can actually do.

Hillary Clinton understands the mistakes she has made, and because she is intelligent is not like to make the same again without carefully considering the road she went down. Slate wrote a OK article about the subject, but I really just want to highlight this nugget:

At CNN’s Feb. 4 town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, Sanders described the vote, with good reason, as “the key foreign policy vote of modern American history.” Clinton, he suggested, came down on the wrong side of history; Sanders, who voted against a similar bill in the House (where he served at the time), chose the right side.

In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.

I have no doubt that overall, Hillary would likely be somewhat more hawkish in action than Bernie. And so that's about the strongest argument I feel one could make about what actionable things Bernie might do differently from Hillary. But I think Hillary is intelligent enough to know with the power of history not to get Americans embroiled in such quagmires unless genuinely provoked. The biggest damage she's like to cause is in continuing the drone war program, but unfortunately for Bernie he has already said multiple times on record he'd continue that program. So I'm not sure if much would even be different here either.

 

[Father_Brain]

It's truly unfortunate that Bernie isn't better equipped to challenge Hillary on foreign policy, because that's the area where I find her most objectionable.

In the end it does not mean anything how dramatic or far reaching his "issues" are between candidates. I disagree with your premise about Obama again, but that's still besides the point. I'm only saying that that the candidates could be literal polar opposites, Bernie the biggest Marxist on Earth, and by thor's magic he could win the election - and still, nothing would be moved forward on that legislation he desires unless he does just what Obama did and Hillary is going to do... compromise. Other then that you're voting for SC nominations, some foreign policy issues and some executive orders that may or may not be overturned by a court that is hopefully more liberal at the time.

I do not think Bernie would be a better president than Obama simply because he has failed to even begin to recognize the types of concessions that must be made by someone in that position to get things done. And if concessions are a dirty word to his supporters, it's going to be even worse as they flee at the first sight of things not going their way because American politics simply does not work that way.

Of course President Sanders would have to compromise. But starting from single-payer and compromising from there would be better than taking the public option off the table before negotiations even start, or starting with a far-too-low figure for a stimulus that you'll only get one chance to pass.

And again, Bernie's ability to influence our political discourse in a positive direction isn't contingent on his ability to win the nomination.

 

[rjinaz]

So the candidates have to reach out, but the supporters are ruining the conversation ...right?

I'm sorry but running as anti-establishment and a revolution will get you exactly that. I'll flat out say Bernie supporters who are loud on this forum do not give a shit about having a conversation. Hillary is establishment, therefore the enemy. It's incredible to watch the talking points just fly here. Debates and facts do not matter.


I'd be curious who you support, and I'd be happy to debate you in a reasonable manner.

It's not only Bernie supporters not wanting to have a conversation. It's hard to have a conversation when you are being told harshly how callous you are as a Bernie supporter and being constantly reminded Bernie has no chance in this election anyway, not that that is going to stop a Hillary supporter from acting as if the sky were falling because there are some not getting in line for Hillary right from the get go.

It's all about stopping the conversation let's not pretend otherwise. Or at least stopping the conversation of any way other than the way they want it to go.

 

[lastflowers]

As someone who was around your age in '08 and supported Obama in the primary, but was much less idealistic about DC politics at the time: Sanders '16 is not Obama '08.

Not because single-payer health care is an achievable goal in the current Congress; not because Sanders is a perfect candidate. But rather, because Sanders' campaign and "political revolution" is actually founded entirely on issues that go well beyond his candidacy, whereas Obama's promised transformation was premised largely on a woefully naive faith in the power of his own charisma to win over recalcitrant Republicans - post-partisanship not just as a means to progressive policy ends, but in large part as an end in and of itself.

Win or lose the nomination (probably lose), that alone makes his candidacy a better starting point for actual long-term political change than what Obama offered eight years ago.

This more accurately represents my viewpoint than I could ever articulate, which I attempted and (fortunately) abandoned a couple of times

 

[noshten]

The kitchen sink is coming courtesy of Rupert

What is Bernie Sanders hiding about his radical history?

The idea of an atheistic Jewish socialist from Vermont (by way of Brooklyn) doesn’t seem to nonplus the voters, at least in the Democratic Party. Good for them. America eschews religious tests as a matter of law and principle.

The kibbutz, according to the Times of Israel, belonged to an Israeli political party called Mapam, which had in the 1950s “been a communist, Soviet-affiliated faction.” It said kibbutz members “had admired Joseph Stalin until his death.”

They would, the Times of Israel reports, “celebrate May Day with red flags.” They spoke of “controlling the means of production, taking from each according to his abilities and giving to each according to his needs.”

It may be that by 1963, when Sanders spent several months on the kibbutz, the place had calmed down. Yet come 1990, when Sanders was interviewed by Haaretz, he was still none too happy with Israel — or America.

Or, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency characterized it, Sanders was “a sharp critic of the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.” Particularly in respect to Central America.

Sanders told Haaretz that he was “embarrassed by Israel’s involvement.” Why? Because Israel was, according to the JTA account, “a front for the American government.”

OK. A lot of people were upset with the American government.

People who are embarrassed that other countries are helping America, however, don’t usually stand for president. After all, the very job of the president himself is to front for America.

Sanders claimed his beef was that Israel was delivering arms to “repressive regimes,” according to JTA’s account. It quotes Sanders as saying he’d “like to see greater pressure on Israel to compromise on the Palestinian issue.”

There is a whole cottage industry of Jews plumping for the Palestinians. But what had we been up to in Central America in 1990? That was the year in which, because of America, democracy finally triumphed.

It was a year to feel particularly good about America. The Nicaraguan people finally got to go to the polls in a free election. (They promptly ousted the Sandinista regime that had set up a Marxist dictatorship in league with the Soviet Union.)

The joy was not limited to Central America. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, signaling that it was but a matter of time before the entire Soviet Union would collapse and be cast, as Reagan once put it, into the ash heap of history.

No one is saying that Sanders was a communist himself (and even many idealists who fell for communism got over it). All the more reason to ask what Sanders was doing complaining about America and the Israelis.

Sanders may not have to come to Jesus. But he could come clean.

Spoiler

prefer not to link to nypost just found this amusing

 

[Rubenov]

If they're conservatives he's the best candidate by far. Trump isn't trustworthy on conservative issues, Rubio/Jeb are the same ol Washington establishment bullshit. Kasich isn't an actual candidate outside of NH and he's establishment bullshit too. Carson is asleep.

Though why they don't support Jim Gilmore is the real question.

Some conservatives want a candidate that can win a general; Cruz isn't one.

 

[Elfforkusu]

^^^^ Bernie being embarrassed by some of the shit that went down in Central America on the US's behest is a tally in his favor, IMO

As someone who was around your age in '08 and supported Obama in the primary, but was much less idealistic about DC politics at the time: Sanders '16 is not Obama '08.

Not because single-payer health care is an achievable goal in the current Congress; not because Sanders is a perfect candidate. But rather, because Sanders' campaign and "political revolution" is actually founded entirely on issues that go well beyond his candidacy, whereas Obama's promised transformation was premised largely on a woefully naive faith in the power of his own charisma to win over recalcitrant Republicans - post-partisanship not just as a means to progressive policy ends, but in large part as an end in and of itself.

Win or lose the nomination (probably lose), that alone makes his candidacy a better starting point for actual long-term political change than what Obama offered eight years ago.

I agree with this.

Although I don't think the hope that Obama could shake up the system was woefully naive -- few could've predicted how far the GOP was willing to go in opposition. They chose to lose their goddamn minds rather than compromise.

 

[Arkeband]

CNN, you silver tongued devils, you know how much Bernie loves being called disheveled.

 

[Father_Brain]

^^^^ Bernie being embarrassed by some of the shit that went down in Central America on the US's behest is a tally in his favor, IMO

I agree with this.

Although I don't think the hope that Obama could shake up the system was woefully naive -- few could've predicted how far the GOP was willing to go in opposition. They chose to lose their goddamn minds rather than compromise.

Nah. I was hardly some political genius back in '08, and in the 110th Congress, the GOP had already reached then-unprecedented levels of obstructionism against the Democratic majority. It should have been a lot more obvious to many more people that Republicans in Congress would never negotiate in good faith with a Democratic president.

 

[RPGCrazied]

When I first heard Bernie speak, I just thought he was just an angry old man. But getting to know him, he is really quite nice, and has a great sense of humor.

He'd make an awesome President.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Hillary Clinton understands the mistakes she has made, and because she is intelligent is not like to make the same again without carefully considering the road she went down.

Is this why she's campaigning on pragmatism and realism against a hope and change candidate?

The kitchen sink is coming courtesy of Rupert

What is Bernie Sanders hiding about his radical history?

If that's the kitchen sink, I sincerely hope for their sake that they've still got a refrigerator and oven to throw at him.

 

[benjipwns]

Nah. I was hardly some political genius back in '08, and in the 110th Congress, the GOP had already reached then-unprecedented levels of obstructionism against the Democratic majority. It should have been a lot more obvious to many more people that Republicans in Congress would never negotiate in good faith with a Democratic president.

"Obstructionism" had really been on an upward rise ever since Jim Jeffords. That set off something in the Senate and the newbies have entered that culture and embraced it.

 

[AlphaDump]

If that's the kitchen sink, I sincerely hope for their sake that they've still got a refrigerator and oven to throw at him.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

Sanders created some controversy when he hung a Soviet flag in his mayoral office, in honor of Burlington's Soviet sister city, Yaroslavl, located some 160 miles northeast of Moscow.

According to an Accuracy In Media report, Sanders during the 1980s "collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'" whose aim was "to stop President Reagan’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe.” Indeed, he “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.”

In 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the rise to power of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the control of corporate interests. Assuring the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by Reagan, he declared: “In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.”

I dont know how accurate that is, but im sure the republicans will find something.

 

[noshten]

Dat Bernie domination in terms of votes

 

[Geist-]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266




I dont know how accurate that is, but im sure the republicans will find something.

I'm sure that's not the worst, but I also know this will be spinned to hell and back if Bernie gets the nomination. For me and I imagine many millennials, that is a plus because him talking to the Soviets and Nicaraguans are a testament to his commitment to peace, but I know this can be used against him for older voters.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266

Indeed, he “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.”

That was a weird strategy in retrospect.

 

[noshten]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2266




I dont know how accurate that is, but im sure the republicans will find something.

People should look up who Accuracy in Media is and double check what dirt they have on Clinton. I'm sure they have all the data about how Sanders collaborated with the Soviet Union to stop Ronald the Right and Clinton's Communist past

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/...the-media-for-unfavorable-obamacare-coverage/
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/should-the-nsa-be-watching-senator-sanders/

 

[Hexa]

Can't Stump The Trump V15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Tn8WFMvQU

 

[A Human Becoming]

Why would they want Cruz to be strong?

Because they like Cruz

 

[Leona Lewis]

Can't Stump The Trump V15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Tn8WFMvQU

omg how have I never seen this before

I might find the topic disgusting, but I can't deny the pure artistry on display.