• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Bernie Sanders a coward?

Is Bernie Sanders a coward?

  • Total voters
    85
Eric7216 said:
OMG, you want to jump right to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

I am not being serious. I was illustrating the flip side of that coin.

Sanders voted to go to Afghanistan.
 
Here is where I would accuse Bernie of Cowardice:

The man says that the purpose of his campaign is (paraphrasing) to root out and end the corruption in our central government, to have an alternative that isn't purchased by the big banks, that doesn't influence-peddle, who isn't criminally involved in selling our Democracy down. He's openly nationalistic about it, picturing foreign interests conspiring with the Powers That Be here in the US to steal our jobs, our wealth, etc., all for the benefit of an uber-wealthy international class who doesn't care about the regular folks.

And yet his outing of Hillary on this is tepid at best. I'm not just talking about the classified information thing (though the idea that some the wealthy and politically powerful think that they are above the law and The Little People should infuriate him and his base). When the Clintons' rented out the Lincoln Bedroom, sold pardons (including to shadowy billionaires), and took so much money from foreign donors that 94 people had to either flee the country, refuse to testify, or plead the 5th, he said nothing and he still says nothing. There are literally books worth of material written about the corruption and pay-for-play that were at the heart of the Clinton Foundation (it's being investigated by the FBI for Public Corruption as we speak), and Bernie says nothing. The closest he's gotten is accusing her of giving speeches for Wall Street. Taking big checks from Wall Street is the least of a long list of items that Bernie should be taking on the Clintons for, and even there he kinda seems content to get a shot in and then let it ride.

Bernie is running around yelling about how we are going to have a Revolution. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is the epitome of everything Bernie claims he opposes, and he won't take it to her. Either he doesn't want to invoke the backlash that would involve, or doesn't want to damage the candidate that he, too, secretly thinks is more likely to win the nomination. Either of those incidences is an example of moral cowardice, and so it is by his own standards that I would charge Bernie Sanders with that failing.
 
Higgins86 said:
I think he is a coward just based on the fact he wasn't willing to go to war for his country but now is running for a position which will see him send young men/women into danger.
Click to expand...

as oppose to trump....

According to Trump’s camp, the reason for this fifth and final free pass was “bone spurs” on the heels of both of the candidate’s feet which resulted in a “minor medical deferment.” But the “bone spurs” explanation is highly dubious when you consider that Trump was known as a talented student athlete who played on his prep school’s varsity football, soccer and baseball teams. According to the International Business Times, quoting a 1990 profile of the billionaire in USA Today, when it came to sports Trump was a star who “won trophies in intramural softball, basketball, softball, bowling and freshman football.”

As Trump biographer Wayne Barrett told the New York Daily News on the subject of the medical exemption, “I doubt it was a serious medical issue. Up to that time, he was an active athlete. It was bull****. I never heard of any foot problem other than them being well-placed in his mouth.”

And on the subject of the draft: “It appears he was actively looking for some justification to evade it.”
Click to expand...

Reminder: Donald Trump is a cowardly draft dodger
 
Higgins86 said:
Don't think I mentioned trump given that the question was is Bernie Sanders a coward.
Click to expand...

Sanders took a principled and difficult position to register as a CO during Vietnam. There's nothing intrinsically laudable about participating in an unjust war. That doesn't mean there's something unethical about not fighting the draft, but it doesn't automatically make you a hero going along with your nation's foreign misadventures.
 
Of course not , its not possible to be a coward and run for US President ..Trump comes close .. But he is too stupid for this .
 
Andalublue said:
Sanders took a principled and difficult position to register as a CO during Vietnam. There's nothing intrinsically laudable about participating in an unjust war. That doesn't mean there's something unethical about not fighting the draft, but it doesn't automatically make you a hero going along with your nation's foreign misadventures.
Click to expand...


No but how can he then potentially send others to war? What happens if soldiers decide that it's an unjust war and ignore President Sanders orders? They go to prison....
 
Higgins86 said:
Don't think I mentioned trump given that the question was is Bernie Sanders a coward.
Click to expand...

technically he never did anything, because he was never drafted, therefore he was never granted conscientious objector status he only applied for it, trump however was drafted and avoided it 5 times. Many veterans applied for conscientious objector status and were denied and they died in the Vietnam war are they cowards, simply for applying as well?

In fact, the most decorated soldier in WW1 applied for conscientious objector status as well, is he a coward by your standards?

On June 5, 1917, at the age of 29, Alvin York registered for the draft as all men between 21 and 31 years of age were required to do on that day. When he registered for the draft, he answered the question "Do you claim exemption from draft (specify grounds)?" by writing "Yes. Don't Want To Fight." When his initial claim for conscientious objector status was denied, he appealed
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
 
EMNofSeattle said:
So were the many people who got National Guard appointment so they could avoid going to Vietnam cowards?
Click to expand...

5,755 Guard and Reservists died in Vietnam. Co D, 151st Infantry of the Indiana National Guard is arguably the most decorated unit in Vietnam with " 19 Silver Stars, 1 Soldiers Medal, 123 Bronze Stars (88 with "V" device for valor), 101 Purple Hearts,111 Air Medals and 183 Army Commendation Medals (29 with "V" device for valor) were awarded for valor and achievement. No other single Army Infantry company was as decorated during a one-year period of time as the Indiana Rangers. "
(Dan Quayle was in the Indiana Natl Guard but not that unit.)

When you sign on the dotted line, you go where you are assigned. It is only in hindsight that you can looked at the numbers killed and imply Guardsmen were not at risk in Vietnam. People who made that assumption would have been wrong in Korea and Iraq.
 
Chomsky said:
Where's the option for 'not necessarily'?

That's the most accurate answer reflecting the conclusions we can draw from the evidence you supplied.
Click to expand...

I would say, that it true. On the other hand, it would not be so bad, if BS had been a coward. In a period in which global security in extremis rests on MAD, you certainly do not want a conscientious objector at the levers. That destroys the fundamental factor that guarantees against nuclear war. If an enemy believes the CIC would not react, there is little reason to refrain from hitting us or our allies and there is little reason for our allies to trust their security in an alliance with us.
 
Bucky said:
Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status During Vietnam, Campaign Confirms - ABC News

Isn't a conscientious objector just another way to say you are a coward?

How can this man be fit to be the commander in chief?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! He was obviously wiser than peers of his age group of which I am one. I volunteered for Vietnam, but am certain that if I was better educated I would not have. War is always accompanied by a Media Narrative generated to make the current War, or War in general, to sound like a reasonable and desirable option. The USA is a business founded upon War and relies upon War to maintain hegemony, militarilly and economically. Apparently, Bernie figured that out in his early days, but it took me a few years longer. If he showed such good judgement in his youth, it is certainly a positive character reference for his campaign. "War is good business." Keeerisstt, think about that, and realize it is the USA mantra, especially, but not exclusively, Republicans. Hillary has demonstrated her warmongering demeanor in Libya. Enough said.
 
Bucky said:
Bernie Sanders Applied for 'Conscientious Objector' Status During Vietnam, Campaign Confirms - ABC News

Isn't a conscientious objector just another way to say you are a coward?

How can this man be fit to be the commander in chief?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Conscientious Objection can be the the action that requires courage.

That does not mean a country can afford a Conscientious Objector as CIC. An enemy would know that he is safe to take, what he wants and an Ally would know that the country was not an ally worth its salt.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I do not care what he did 40 years ago.

I say he is a coward TODAY because in every debate I have seen him in, he lets Hillary talk over him all the time.

He also does not take advantage of some openings Hillary gives him.

He is way too passive in the debates, and let's Hillary dominate him. Maybe that is his kink.
Click to expand...
I too see the behaviour you describe, but I don't go as far as calling him a coward (from what I know at this point). But his lack of assertiveness at times in the debates, is concerning to me. I'm still not sure what to make of it, Smilin'.

Here's what I wrote in another thread (I used Ted Cruz simply as a compare & contrast example - he's not the guy for me):

"I'm not sure if his lack of assertiveness would cause him to lose a one-on-one debate with her, but it does play poorly to a large-enough segment of the larger electorate.

Like it or not, admit it or not, us humans are primordially driven by fear; when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, we want a guy that can be tough if the crap hits the fan.

As much as I'm no particular fan of Sen Cruz, though I greatly respect his skills, picture in your mind the shrewd cunning Ted Cruz v the mild mannered Sen Sanders, when the moment comes to make some epochal decision similar to those made during WW-II, the Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis, etc.

During those times like the above, I want a cold, cunning, shrewd, hard guy - the more Machiavellian the better!"

 
Redress said:
No, it is not another way to say coward.
Click to expand...

Quite right. But it does mean that such a person must not be President. Of all the things I have learned about BS, this is probably the one that would disqualify him most for the job of CIC.
 
joG said:
Quite right. But it does mean that such a person must not be President. Of all the things I have learned about BS, this is probably the one that would disqualify him most for the job of CIC.
Click to expand...

He should be disqualified for something he did within the rules 50 years ago?
 
joG said:
I would say, that it true. On the other hand, it would not be so bad, if BS had been a coward. In a period in which global security in extremis rests on MAD, you certainly do not want a conscientious objector at the levers. That destroys the fundamental factor that guarantees against nuclear war. If an enemy believes the CIC would not react, there is little reason to refrain from hitting us or our allies and there is little reason for our allies to trust their security in an alliance with us.
Click to expand...
You bring-up the very point I made in another thread.

Although, I see your point here in more nuanced fashion: There's a difference between cowardice, pacifism, and refraining to partake in what one may believe is an unjust war. And the continuum of the cowardice-bravery line runs the gamut through those three scenarios, from pure cowardice, to having the guts & bravery to face the consequences of Consciences Object and stand the chance to lose everything - as it would seem Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay was willing to do during this same era. But we really don't know why Bernie CO'd, to be honest; and we probably never will.

But here's my other post, which addresses the content of your post I quoted above:

"I'm not sure if his lack of assertiveness would cause him to lose a one-on-one debate with her, but it does play poorly to a large-enough segment of the larger electorate.

Like it or not, admit it or not, us humans are primordially driven by fear; when it comes time to pull that lever in the voting booth, we want a guy that can be tough if the crap hits the fan.

As much as I'm no particular fan of Sen Cruz, though I greatly respect his skills, picture in your mind the shrewd cunning Ted Cruz v the mild mannered Sen Sanders, when the moment comes to make some epochal decision similar to those made during WW-II, the Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis, etc.

During those times like the above, I want a cold, cunning, shrewd, hard guy - the more Machiavellian the better!

"
 
Bucky said:
Isn't a conscientious objector just another way to say you are a coward?

How can this man be fit to be the commander in chief?
Click to expand...

if he could recognize a war that the US shouldn't have been involved in at that age without the benefit of hindsight, then i'd say that's a plus. maybe he'll find a way to keep our kids out of another hopeless Middle Eastern war.
 
Redress said:
He should be disqualified for something he did within the rules 50 years ago?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all in what he "did" but in why he did it. He said he refused to take up weapons in war because his conscience forbade it him. That is fine. It would, however, be crazy to make a man responsible for managing Americans' international security that refused to take up weapons. After all, one of the main reasons we have not had a nuclear war has been, that other so armed countries believe that we would retaliate. A man who says his conscience forbids him to use weapons is not very convincing as guarantor of MAD.
 
Helix said:
if he could recognize a war that the US shouldn't have been involved in at that age without the benefit of hindsight, then i'd say that's a plus. maybe he'll find a way to keep our kids out of another hopeless Middle Eastern war.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity, he did not apply for CO status because the war was wrong, but because he felt all war was wrong.
 
Redress said:
He should be disqualified for something he did within the rules 50 years ago?
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with Jog here, but he brings-up a valid concern: that being the amount of respect a commander-in-chief, who was a CO himself, would garner from the rank & file enlisted?

I tend to think this will not stop me from voting for him, but it strikes me as a legit concern.

I guess the military guys would be the best to weigh-in on this, but if they can't respect him or his authority, then yeah I'd have concerns here.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I do not care what he did 40 years ago.

I say he is a coward TODAY because in every debate I have seen him in, he lets Hillary talk over him all the time.

He also does not take advantage of some openings Hillary gives him.

He is way too passive in the debates, and let's Hillary dominate him. Maybe that is his kink.
Click to expand...

Maybe he doesn't like to be negative and doesn't feel his ego needs to be propped up by getting into some kind of machismo shouting match.
 
Redress said:
Just for clarity, he did not apply for CO status because the war was wrong, but because he felt all war was wrong.
Click to expand...

there are some necessary wars, such as WWII, which might have been prevented by avoiding WWI. i trust him to do everything he can to prevent WWI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom