4 ms·

"And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling I Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric." That sounds to me like, "I'm sur

"And while I think Trump likely would normalize if elected, my feeling I Sanders has more real intention behind his rhetoric." That sounds to me like, "I'm sure he'll straighten up if I marry him." It simply doesn't work like that. I'm not denying that Sanders has more intention behind his words. But I don't expect Trump to suddenly start making good and reasoned policy decisions just because he gets elected.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
There was a gold-played in the New York Times I saw once speculating on a Trump/Sanders debate that went something like this: Moderator: Mr Trump, how will construct your wall, and how will you pay for it if Mexico refuses? Trump: We aren't gonna take no for an answer. Mexico is gonna pay for that wall, believe me. Moderator: Senator Sanders, how will you pass your policy ideas through a recalcitrant congress? Sanders: We need a political revolution! People need to vote in large numbers and elect people who will support my bills. Moderator: Thank you both for your detailed and informative responses.
- mc32 11y ago
  I think that sums them up and the process pretty well. Sadly true.
- r00fus 11y ago
  The amusing part is that Hillary will face the same pressures as Sanders in trying to push even moderate or GOP-appeasing policy through the current congress. So the only policy that would get passed is the ones which benefit the funders of both the GOP and centrist Democrats - ie, corporate friendly legislation like the TPP and/or perhaps revenue repatriation tax holiday. Sanders' benefit (from a progressive viewpoint) is that at the very least, he is a guaranteed veto on stuff like that. Meanwhile he would be drumming daily on voting out those who oppose his policies instead of caving to the GOP/Centrists.
  - secstate 11y ago
    This. And that's why "settling" for a centrist democrat simply slows the slide into corporate ownership of the US. The real issue here is having winner-take-all elections. We'd have a much more spirited public debate if we had ranked-choice voting.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

There was a gold-played in the New York Times I saw once speculating on a Trump/Sanders debate that went something like this: Moderator: Mr Trump, how will construct your wall, and how will you pay for it if Mexico refuses? Trump: We aren't gonna take no for an answer. Mexico is gonna pay for that wall, believe me. Moderator: Senator Sanders, how will you pass your policy ideas through a recalcitrant congress? Sanders: We need a political revolution! People need to vote in large numbers and elect people who will support my bills. Moderator: Thank you both for your detailed and informative responses.

mc32 11y ago
I think that sums them up and the process pretty well. Sadly true.
r00fus 11y ago
The amusing part is that Hillary will face the same pressures as Sanders in trying to push even moderate or GOP-appeasing policy through the current congress. So the only policy that would get passed is the ones which benefit the funders of both the GOP and centrist Democrats - ie, corporate friendly legislation like the TPP and/or perhaps revenue repatriation tax holiday. Sanders' benefit (from a progressive viewpoint) is that at the very least, he is a guaranteed veto on stuff like that. Meanwhile he would be drumming daily on voting out those who oppose his policies instead of caving to the GOP/Centrists.
- secstate 11y ago
  This. And that's why "settling" for a centrist democrat simply slows the slide into corporate ownership of the US. The real issue here is having winner-take-all elections. We'd have a much more spirited public debate if we had ranked-choice voting.