3 ms·
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 con
by 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 agoI think that sums them up and the process pretty well. Sadly true.
- r00fus 11y agoThe 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 agoThis. 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.