Question For Bernie Sanders' Supporters

I'm not a Bernie supporter, though I have deep respect for him and do believe in the authenticity of his message. I also sympathize with him for trying to do good in a belligerent and iniquitous country and for having such an awful base.

Zyphlin said:

It's simply not true.

First, to choose someone requires you to actually CHOOSE them for one.

Second, this assumes that if one was not to vote 3rd party that they would automatically vote for the person that didn't win.
Third, if you're going with the literalistic premise that every vote not for [x] is a vote for [y], then it's just as viable to go the literalistic route and say that if [x] won by more votes than [y] than the lack of a persons vote for [y] had zero direct impact on "electing" person [x].

It's an ignorant and logically incorrect notion paraded around by adherents to both parties to trump up their own candidates and to make them feel good about their personal decision to vote for someone they don't feel comfortable supporting at times.

I have nothing against those that wish to flush away their principles, or feel that the ends justifies the means, or feels confident in giving their vote of confidence and support to the lesser of two evils. However, they are no more correct in their tactics than those who don't wish to do those things, and the hollier than thou attitude in an attempt to belittle and demean other peoples choice in order to intimidate, guilt, or shame them into voting in their way is inherently abhorrent to my sensibilities as an American and actually make me less likely to vote for that persons chosen candidate every. single. time.

Click to expand...

I believe Zyphlin is describing the action of the voter and JoG is describing the consequence of the action of the voter. Both posters are correct.

Cardinal said:

It's a glass half full, glass half empty situation: both are true. If you vote for candidate C, you are choosing that person. If voting for candidate C risks taking votes away from candidate B, then you are giving candidate A a greater chance of winning. Both statements are true.

Click to expand...

First time I've ever agreed with Cardinal. I'm breaking out the champagne.

tres borrachos said:

I'm not a Bernie supporter, I was a Rubio girl. But if I leaned further left, I would enthusiastically support him. As it is, I really like the man. He practices what he preaches. He's a middle class man who made it but still lives middle class. He is very genuine. He is basically everything Hillary Clinton is not.

I'm not a fan of Bernie's ideas because I'm clearly a capitalist and not a socialist. But I "get" where he's coming from. I think some of his ideas have merit, they just aren't feasible.

Click to expand...

I'm surprisingly not put off by his desires and goals, but I fear the devil is in the details, and we would not like the results.

tres borrachos said:

My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.

Click to expand...

Big profits are fine, big corporations are fine, wanting to see your investment portfolio do well is fine (I myself am invested in a number of mutual and index funds that track the domestic, international, large and small markets, and bonds). It's when a)their behavior gets toxic that I take issue with, and b)when that behavior isn't even very good for your investment portfolio anyway.

Some examples of A). Nestle colluding with local governments in South America to prevent locals from collecting rainwater so that they must buy their water from Nestle. Or internet providers lobbying state legislatures to prevent local municipalities from providing their own isps so as not to compete the giant providers. And if you're conservative I know you'll agree with me on this one: health insurance companies essentially writing the ACA so as to prevent UHC. Capitalism wasn't the issue in these cases, nor even big corporations. It was big corporations acting like megalithic James Bond villains and colluding with lawmakers in order to exclude the needs of the nonwealthy or just behaving in the most hilariously insidious ways possible.

A really easy example of B). When researching etf's that went beyond simply tracking the market, I was keenly interested in biotechs. How could biotechs go wrong? People will need biotechs until the human race advances to the next stage of evolution and turns into beings of pure energy and light. In other words, as long as we're organic, we'll need biotech technology. One etf in particular got my interest: IBB, whose performance was in a near 90 degree trajectory. Two things I didn't consider, and why I'm glad I didn't get into IBB. 1)Part of the reason for the trajectory was a spate of mergers, which by the way is never good for the consumer. 2)Another reason for the trajectory of biotech in general is a little company run by a nice man named Martin Shkreli, whose claim to fame was raising AIDS drugs by 5000%. All of these created an inflated perception of biotech's value, and as with all bubbles, all it takes to pop one is for just one person to say "It's all a lie!" and the whole thing comes crashing down. Hillary Clinton said to the press that the price of drugs were too damn high (duh) and IBB's price was 400 in August, is now sitting at ~250, and shows no signs of recovering.

It's these types of things that Bernie Sanders' angst revolves around. Sanders is neither a communist nor does he want to see us returning to an agrarian bartering economy where we all sew our own clothes.

This either needed to be multiple choice, or feature another option: all of the above.

tres borrachos said:

My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.

Click to expand...

Oh, to add to my prior post, I didn't actually list the main reason why all the biotech mergers were bad: if the extraordinary trajectory of IBB could be partly explained by mergers, well that's obviously mean a fine trajectory: companies can only merge for so long until there are no more to be absorbed.

Well, there's much to say here. As for the OP, I voted for Sanders because I largely agree with his policies. I think he doesn't go far enough, but I was willing to compromise with the DNC on at least New Deal and a slight expansion of New Deal policies, protecting unions, and fighting against trade agreements.

I'd have preferred forbidding the US from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, I'd have preferred that we cut off ties and placed sanctions on Saudi Arabia until they stopped funding Wuhabbi/Salafi terrorism, I'd have preferred that the government forgave all student debt so Millennials could actually be a part of the ****ing economy, I'd prefer to have all non-violent drug offenders be released from prison after legalizing marijuana, I'd prefer to have all drugs be non-criminal and have drug rehabilitation, I'd have preferred that all corporations above a certain size were required to unionize and have democratically elected unions serve on the board as well as have the workers receive a certain percentage of the stocks, I'd have preferred that the US invest in local companies, I'd have preferred that the US place severe restrictions on CO2 emissions, and created a multi-trillion dollar national works program.

And I'd have preferred that the US tax the rich at 90% to make up for the years they've hosed the American public and done tax-evasion. But I compromised with Sanders agenda (and I think Sanders compromised with Sanders agenda), because you could sell the most people on it.

TheGoverness said:

No, I'm gonna vote 3rd-Party.

Click to expand...

#JillStein2016

Oh wait, sorry, I can't vote for her because she's a woman, and apparently I'm one of those sexist Bernie Bro's. But I guess maybe I can vote for her because she's white. (Dear Bill and Hillary: you can go **** yourselves.)

Zyphlin said:

To elect someone is to choose them. To vote for someone other than that person is inherently NOT choosing them. She would not be electing Clinton, nor would she be electing Trump. Only those who actually cast a vote for those people would be the individuals who "elected" them.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'd like to note that people only really yell about this topic when the candidate who clearly shouldn't have won ended up winning.

Cardinal said:

While I understand and appreciate the importance of choice, your argument demands having ignorance of the greater circumstances as well as possible negative outcomes of such a choice. If you want to make the "principle" argument, that's absolutely fine, but insisting on ignoring very obvious repercussions is breathtakingly naive.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's much the point, isn't it?

There aren't many Bernie or Bust people who seriously think that a Trump presidency, during those four years alone, would be better than a Clinton presidency. Some will vote for Trump, but they're a tiny percentage. Others still view Trump and Hillary as neutral --Hillary is lying to them and isn't looking out for them, and Trump is lying to them and isn't looking out for them. I mean, can we seriously sit down and ask, say, some broke kid from Appalachia who's family lost their job, no on in their town has gone to college because no one can afford college, and 30% of their town is laid off? You think, objectively speaking about their material situation, it really makes one flying **** of a difference to that person whether Clinton or Trump sits in the Oval Office? The Clinton's outsourced jobs, Clinton's went after welfare, Clinton has never supported unions in any meaningful sense, and so on. I mean this seriously: What economic incentive is there for that person to bother showing up at the polls? I think these people simply will not show up to the polls.

Then there's the last set of BernieOrBust people, who believe that Clinton's 4 years in office would be better. I count myself amongst these numbers. For these people, I think the concern is not for the following 4 years, but the following 40. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party has set itself in stone to be totally bought by corporate influence, total lack of commitment to single-payer, medicare-for-all healthcare, seems only so-so concerned about the environment (You know, we care when aren't getting paid by Big Oil, we don't when we are), and so on. So Trump has the power to do short-term systemic damage to the economy, but Hillary has the power to do long-term systemic damage to the Left. If she is given the power to define the "Left" as being a corporate/Wall Street pushover, then that could prevent a lot of very necessary reforms from taking place. That worries as much as a Trump presidency.

I literally don't know which one I find more threatening to the well being of the country, and I've been thinking about this for months.

BrewerBob said:

I support Bernie because, for the most part, I like his voting record and the policies he pushes. He has always stood for what he believed even when it wasn't popular. In hindsight he was usually right.

Hillary was never going to have my vote. I voted Green party in the last election and would have this time around if Bernie hadn't thrown in his hat. And if he doesn't get the nomination I will likely vote Green again. I voted for Bernie despite him running as a Democrat.

Click to expand...

I voted for Barrack Obama both times. That was enough capitulation for my tastes. It's going to be Green until the Democrats have the sense to absorb us.

tres borrachos said:

My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't you making money. It's a question of how the money is made, and what the long term ramifications are for making money that way. On one extreme, you can make money by working very hard, selling yourself on your product. On the other extreme, you can make money, for instance, selling people into slavery. So there are immoral and moral ways to make money, and corporations have increasingly moved or are moving over to extremely unethical sources of income.

Cardinal said:

Big profits are fine, big corporations are fine, wanting to see your investment portfolio do well is fine (I myself am invested in a number of mutual and index funds that track the domestic, international, large and small markets, and bonds). It's when a)their behavior gets toxic that I take issue with, and b)when that behavior isn't even very good for your investment portfolio anyway.

Some examples of A). Nestle colluding with local governments in South America to prevent locals from collecting rainwater so that they must buy their water from Nestle. Or internet providers lobbying state legislatures to prevent local municipalities from providing their own isps so as not to compete the giant providers. And if you're conservative I know you'll agree with me on this one: health insurance companies essentially writing the ACA so as to prevent UHC. Capitalism wasn't the issue in these cases, nor even big corporations. It was big corporations acting like megalithic James Bond villains and colluding with lawmakers in order to exclude the needs of the nonwealthy or just behaving in the most hilariously insidious ways possible.

A really easy example of B). When researching etf's that went beyond simply tracking the market, I was keenly interested in biotechs. How could biotechs go wrong? People will need biotechs until the human race advances to the next stage of evolution and turns into beings of pure energy and light. In other words, as long as we're organic, we'll need biotech technology. One etf in particular got my interest: IBB, whose performance was in a near 90 degree trajectory. Two things I didn't consider, and why I'm glad I didn't get into IBB. 1)Part of the reason for the trajectory was a spate of mergers, which by the way is never good for the consumer. 2)Another reason for the trajectory of biotech in general is a little company run by a nice man named Martin Shkreli, whose claim to fame was raising AIDS drugs by 5000%. All of these created an inflated perception of biotech's value, and as with all bubbles, all it takes to pop one is for just one person to say "It's all a lie!" and the whole thing comes crashing down. Hillary Clinton said to the press that the price of drugs were too damn high (duh) and IBB's price was 400 in August, is now sitting at ~250, and shows no signs of recovering.

It's these types of things that Bernie Sanders' angst revolves around. Sanders is neither a communist nor does he want to see us returning to an agrarian bartering economy where we all sew our own clothes.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with much of what you say here, especially this:

health insurance companies essentially writing the ACA so as to prevent UHC

As far as this:

we all sew our own clothes

I hope you're right! I can't even thread a ****ing needle.

FieldTheorist said:

The problem isn't you making money. It's a question of how the money is made, and what the long term ramifications are for making money that way. On one extreme, you can make money by working very hard, selling yourself on your product. On the other extreme, you can make money, for instance, selling people into slavery. So there are immoral and moral ways to make money, and corporations have increasingly moved or are moving over to extremely unethical sources of income.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with this. I was making a general statement but even general statements have massive exceptions. I probably should have said it differently. I don't agree with his (and most on the left) having serious anger over executive compensation.

We either want to live in a democratic society where everyone has hope for the American dream or we want socialism. There have been many who rose from sheer and utter poverty to becoming multimillionaires and even billionaires. Socialism has been tried many times throughout the world and history and failed every time. The left refuses to understand that with socialism most everyone is somewhat equal, except for those in charge of the socialism, who basically steal all of the money for themselves, not to mention a whole host of other problems with socialism.

tres borrachos said:

Yes I agree with this. I was making a general statement but even general statements have massive exceptions. I probably should have said it differently. I don't agree with his (and most on the left) having serious anger over executive compensation.

Click to expand...

I do think CEO salaries are far, far higher than they should be, but I think this isn't quite exactly the point. I think the point is it's those CEO's (and the institutions surrounding them) that are manipulating the system in order to take very, very well-compensated positions and then artificially inflate them to even higher salaries by buying off the government to get their company contracts in illegitimate ways or for things that don't need to be done (e.g. Bernie has railed against the wasted money on unnecessary contractors in the military for ages, and has complained that this takes away from veterans affairs and benefits for soldiers), that they do considerable damage to the environment to cut corners, that they deregulate in unsafe ways (e.g. the bill funding Zika virus prevention that passed this week included a measure that allows trucking companies require their employees to work over 70 hours a week, which literally makes driving more dangerous for people and families all across the country), and that they fight against unions and labor laws, they fight giving their employees healthcare, they fight against US interests in the disastrous trade deals that have cost Americans millions of jobs and has depressed the economy even further in the past 20 years, and at the same time, they continue to lower or keep the same their employees wages. I don't think anyone can be surprised when they discover that almost every new job created during the Obama (and towards the end of his term, Bush) administration has been underemployment and since Ronald Reagan, the poor keep on getting poorer, the middle-class is disappearing, and even the upper middle-class is starting to become the lower middle-class --but it's been 40 great years if you've been rich. (There's plenty of statistics and measures that show this, if you like I can bring them up.) On top of that, one of the most important goals (in terms of successful laws passed) of our government during all of these times has been to decrease taxes on the wealthy, which the lack of funding to the government has lead to loads of "retrograde taxes" on the poor and middle-class (e.g. the tremendous rate at which cops seizing vehicles, money, etc, from people for "suspected" in being involved in drugs --again, one example of many, another would be the increased number of traffic tickets given out). This also doesn't discuss the institutions, like universities and housing, that they're destabilizing in order to make some of that money.

People are doing all of the above --and way more-- to get those massive corporate executive increases (which is, inflation-adjusted, around 1000% higher than it was 40 years ago, and that's not including the taxation change from ~90% taxes to ~15-24% taxation, which makes that a ~5,000% change in personal income) and so far the public has let them get away with it. And so I think the question is really: Is this really the kind of society that we want to live in?