6 ms·

> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic soc

> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.

pessimizer 10y ago
If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now. When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to. I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that. JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career. Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism. I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Well, yeah, seeing as how it's my opinion. I don't know what other scale I should follow...I certainly don't expect you to follow mine, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss them. Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves. I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so? We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        > Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
        aaron-lebo 10y ago
        To be fair, you did say: > Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. ...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds. > A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way. We are in agreement then.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor. OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system. Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - camel_Snake 10y ago
    I feel like the Twelfth Amendment hampers this. I don't know anyone that wants the House to choose the next president. I can't even imagine what a fiasco that would be. "If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure. "[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
vaadu 10y ago
Which is why their economies suck. Centralized planning is an utter failure. https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
- colordrops 10y ago
  The economy is not the only, or even the main, measure of a nation's success. Even if it were, the US is not at the top in many important economic measures, so the evidence seems to go against your thesis.
- woah 10y ago
  Germany?
  - sremani 10y ago
    Germany, really?! Germany is an export oriented economy (45% of GDP) and had to hold Greece hostage to Euro. If Greeks had drachma, they could have devalued and probably would be able to wrest some industry away from Central and Western Europe. Germany is a bad bad example, one thing automation will do, is bring back manufacturing locally, since the labor costs will diminish, so export oriented economies like Germany are for misery in next decade. I would take 'Murican economy over German any time from on set of 1900s to today and way into future. edit: also Germany 'really' did not pay off money that was injected during Marshall plan.
    - virmundi 10y ago
      Germany finally figured out that European domination didn't require war. Centuries of bloodshed taught them that that it's better to control via politics than the barrel.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        Hence the Greek plan to counter that attack with bankruptcy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ (warning: NSFW language, loud)
lettergram 10y ago
His economic plan would require all the wealth produced by the top 100 U.S. companies. He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Oh and if you look at his past votes they're almost all opposite of his campaign. Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left. I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Holy crap, really!? Source, please, I need more reasons to love Bernie.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  Of course, in "capitalism" that doesn't happen - instead banks and other "too large to fail" companies are just given money, or they are sort-of nationalized - but without actually doing so (GM, Chrysler for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_...).

pessimizer 10y ago

If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now. When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to. I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that. JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career. Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism. I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Well, yeah, seeing as how it's my opinion. I don't know what other scale I should follow...I certainly don't expect you to follow mine, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss them. Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves. I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so? We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      > Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
      - aaron-lebo 10y ago
        To be fair, you did say: > Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. ...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds. > A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way. We are in agreement then.
mindcrime 10y ago
I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor. OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system. Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- camel_Snake 10y ago
  I feel like the Twelfth Amendment hampers this. I don't know anyone that wants the House to choose the next president. I can't even imagine what a fiasco that would be. "If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure. "[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...

vaadu 10y ago

Which is why their economies suck. Centralized planning is an utter failure. https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...

colordrops 10y ago
The economy is not the only, or even the main, measure of a nation's success. Even if it were, the US is not at the top in many important economic measures, so the evidence seems to go against your thesis.
woah 10y ago
Germany?
- sremani 10y ago
  Germany, really?! Germany is an export oriented economy (45% of GDP) and had to hold Greece hostage to Euro. If Greeks had drachma, they could have devalued and probably would be able to wrest some industry away from Central and Western Europe. Germany is a bad bad example, one thing automation will do, is bring back manufacturing locally, since the labor costs will diminish, so export oriented economies like Germany are for misery in next decade. I would take 'Murican economy over German any time from on set of 1900s to today and way into future. edit: also Germany 'really' did not pay off money that was injected during Marshall plan.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Germany finally figured out that European domination didn't require war. Centuries of bloodshed taught them that that it's better to control via politics than the barrel.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      Hence the Greek plan to counter that attack with bankruptcy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ (warning: NSFW language, loud)

lettergram 10y ago

His economic plan would require all the wealth produced by the top 100 U.S. companies. He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Oh and if you look at his past votes they're almost all opposite of his campaign. Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left. I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Holy crap, really!? Source, please, I need more reasons to love Bernie.
LionessLover 10y ago
Of course, in "capitalism" that doesn't happen - instead banks and other "too large to fail" companies are just given money, or they are sort-of nationalized - but without actually doing so (GM, Chrysler for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_...).