I know some here are real big fans of his and while I disagree with him on the majority of issues, I at least respect he openly tells you who he is. So let the debate begin between Hilary (Neo-liberal Corporatist) and Sanders (Progressive Democratic Socialist) for the Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/pol....html?_r=0
He won't get it, but he should do what he came to accomplish. Forcing Hillary to face some of the issues that he feels are important such as campaign finance reform.
Would much prefer Sanders to Hillary though.
Quote:He won't get it, but he should do what he came to accomplish. Forcing Hillary to face some of the issues that he feels are important such as campaign finance reform.
Would much prefer Sanders to Hillary though.
Sanders will at a minimum bring the progressive issues to the debate with Hillary. Obviously she will do what the repub candidates will do and pander to the base as needed to get the nod then move to the center for the general elections then do whatever they originally intended on doing once elected.
I like his stance on campaign finance and infrastructure as well as education.
Quote:Sanders will at a minimum bring the progressive issues to the debate with Hillary. Obviously she will do what the repub candidates will do and pander to the base as needed to get the nod then move to the center for the general elections then do whatever they originally intended on doing once elected.
I like his stance on campaign finance and infrastructure as well as education.
What is his infrastructure on education? You meet so very few real admitted socialist I honestly don't know what their views are on many things.
Quote:You likely won't agree with either of them but here you go
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-g...astruture/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015...iversities
Well the infrastructure sounds great but even he admits they don't know where to get the funding from
"Sanders, who did not specify a source of funding for his bill, said targeted investments would be made in roads, bridges, transit, rail lines, water systems, ports and inland waterways, national parks, municipal broadband systems and the electric grid."
I'm sensing a theme here:
"Although he did not outline how to pay for the plan, Sanders noted that the $18 billion is just a fraction of the increase in defense spending that Obama proposed this year."
Quote:Well the infrastructure sounds great but even he admits they don't know where to get the funding from
"Sanders, who did not specify a source of funding for his bill, said targeted investments would be made in roads, bridges, transit, rail lines, water systems, ports and inland waterways, national parks, municipal broadband systems and the electric grid."
I'm sensing a theme here:
"Although he did not outline how to pay for the plan, Sanders noted that the $18 billion is just a fraction of the increase in defense spending that Obama proposed this year."
If I had to guess, he'd fund it with the money that was going to go to defense instead. He'd also cut out subsidies to oil, gas and coal industries that are set to cost taxpayers $135 billion in the coming decade.
I'm guessing he'd also try to get us out of all the foreign wars we're in (in the name of the war on terror) which are also costing us greatly.
Not to mention ending the war on drugs. That'd save us a ton of money too.
Quote:If I had to guess, he'd fund it with the money that was going to go to defense instead. He'd also cut out subsidies to oil, gas and coal industries that are set to cost taxpayers $135 billion in the coming decade.
I'm guessing he'd also try to get us out of all the foreign wars we're in (in the name of the war on terror) which are also costing us greatly.
Not to mention ending the war on drugs. That'd save us a ton of money too.
If he would say all of that then I'd consider even supporting some of his programs. But the problem is they always say I'm going to cut ____ and then never cut ___ just increase spending on the new program.
Quote:If he would say all of that then I'd consider even supporting some of his programs. But the problem is they always say I'm going to cut ____ and then never cut ___ just increase spending on the new program.
I think that's a symptom of politics.
I agree that we can't just increase spending without cutting. The War on Drugs cost the US $15 Billion in 2010, and that's not counting money that the states spent on it. There's a lot of areas we can cut spending on without upsetting anyone. We just... never do it. And it's frustrating. There's a lot of questionable spending that nobody is looking at. Democrats look at it and think "Raise Taxes!" Republicans look at it and think "Cut Welfare and federal education spending!"
While I look at it and think "Cut the war on drugs, cut the spending on planes that you don't need, lower defense funding without lowering the pay of our troops or benefits for veterans. Don't spend $25 Billion a year on unused properties. Don't spend $2.6 million to train chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job, take the 50,000 federally owned houses that you own and sell them at a low cost, and start paying attention to cost saving measures that HHS has recommended that would save up to $9 Billion annually."
Quote:I think that's a symptom of politics.
I agree that we can't just increase spending without cutting. The War on Drugs cost the US $15 Billion in 2010, and that's not counting money that the states spent on it. There's a lot of areas we can cut spending on without upsetting anyone. We just... never do it. And it's frustrating. There's a lot of questionable spending that nobody is looking at. Democrats look at it and think "Raise Taxes!" Republicans look at it and think "Cut Welfare and federal education spending!"
While I look at it and think "Cut the war on drugs, cut the spending on planes that you don't need, lower defense funding without lowering the pay of our troops or benefits for veterans. Don't spend $25 Billion a year on unused properties. Don't spend $2.6 million to train chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job, take the 50,000 federally owned houses that you own and sell them at a low cost, and start paying attention to cost saving measures that HHS has recommended that would save up to $9 Billion annually."
As with most large programs funding will come when it's time to actually talk about it. I have total faith Bernie with a very popular with progressives and hated by everyone else way to pay for things similar to as outlined by the good Dr above.
Hilary has already anticipated this and has been tacking leftward since she announced. She still has reason to fear E. Warren. But not Bernie. A socialist. C'mon. He's the leftist version of Ted Cruz. Give the hard core something to cheer about and feel good about themselves but not be a real threat to anyone.
I'm only half-kidding when I say that I think the Clintons have paid Bernie to run so Hilary can look sensible and moderate to the people who will actually be voting in the general election.
Quote:Hilary has already anticipated this and has been tacking leftward since she announced. She still has reason to fear E. Warren. But not Bernie. A socialist. C'mon. He's the leftist version of Ted Cruz. Give the hard core something to cheer about and feel good about themselves but not be a real threat to anyone.
I'm only half-kidding when I say that I think the Clintons have paid Bernie to run so Hilary can look sensible and moderate to the people who will actually be voting in the general election.
If you are even half kidding you don't get Bernie at all. He bows to no one.
You are right thought hat he's not going to win I am sure he knows that but sees his chance to push the progressive agenda in debates.
Warren need to stay in the Senate. She can do good there I think.
I'm certainly not a Bernie Sanders fan but I'm glad to see that Hilliary won't be going unopposed in the Democrat nomination process. The more Hillary's history is mentioned in the campaign process, the better chance to defeat her.
Quote:I'm certainly not a Bernie Sanders fan but I'm glad to see that Hilliary won't be going unopposed in the Democrat nomination process. The more Hillary's history is mentioned in the campaign process, the better chance to defeat her.
He won't be able to beat her.
Quote:He won't be able to beat her.
D6 means the more likely the Republican will beat her in the general election. He's talking about getting her dirty in the primary
Quote:D6 means the more likely the Republican will beat her in the general election. He's talking about getting her dirty in the primary
That's not Bernie's game. He has no problem calling people on hypocrisy on voting record or past statements but he wont play dirty. Weather you consider it dirty or not I don't see him campaigning like that.
Quote:That's not Bernie's game. He has no problem calling people on hypocrisy on voting record or past statements but he wont play dirty. Weather you consider it dirty or not I don't see him campaigning like that.
I read that he said he won't be running an negative adds which is admirable but him just calling Clinton on her hypocrisy is good enough for me.
Quote:I read that he said he won't be running an negative adds which is admirable but him just calling Clinton on her hypocrisy is good enough for me.
Wish more people would follow his example of not running negative ads. Focus on the issues.
Quote:I read that he said he won't be running an negative adds which is admirable but him just calling Clinton on her hypocrisy is good enough for me.
Quote:Wish more people would follow his example of not running negative ads. Focus on the issues.
Yup. If all politicians would run on their pros and not other's cons and then in debates call them on their factual BS and hypocrisy not only would be soooo happy but we would see a major change in attitude about elections from the general populace.
Don't forget, guys, that budget spending and cuts falls on the congress. A president has the pulpit, but if we only elect congress people that are only willing to obstruct, most presidential policies won't get put into place.