• 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!

Bernie Sanders Is Done Playing Nice, ERUPTS In Anger Over Donald Trump (VIDEO)

Greenbeard said:
Sure, let's address the most important issue at stake in this election: pot. The Dem platform calls for rescheduling marijuana and allowing for continued state experimentation. So does their standard bearer. How draconian.
Click to expand...

No one, other than the people who work for NORML, would call marijuana legalization the most important issue (There are very important racial implications, however). But this points back to a previous issue: Hillary is against marijuana legalization, she's stated that black and white. The only reason she's now suddenly for any push on marijuana is because Sanders forced her into it.

Look, the biggest issue with all of her positions is that she was forced into a lot of it due to Sanders, she literally fought him tooth and nail, and the second the primary was over, she stopped mentioning these issues. I have not heard her spend a second of ad time on anything that is in the new DNC platform. I haven't heard her rally against the death penalty, I haven't heard her push hard for free college, I haven't heard her push against the TPP (which she kept out of the platform), she's still arguing against the $15 minimum wage, and she's still against creating a modern Glass-Steagall act so far as I know. When DAPL was going on, we didn't hear a goddamn word from her (And her people vetoed anti-frakking from making it onto the platform). People are pushing for single-payer right now, and we haven't heard a goddamn word from her. I think I've heard her mention that she's for expanding social security, but I'm not sure.

Why? Because almost every ad dollar is going into negative ads, because it's the only thing Hillary (or at least the advisors she puts around herself) knows how to do: Go negative. Hillary, apparently, has even less faith in herself than you do, because like during the primary against Sanders, she's jump pumping the ad hominem canons (in this case, at least justifiably and truthfully) to the maximum. And she'll lose if she keeps this up. The only positive ads and publicity that she's been doing for herself is to try to tout her endorsements from Kissinger, Negroponte, etc, and now Bush, in order to make herself more palatable to moderate Republicans. That, also, speaks volumes about how unprogressive Hillary is on foreign policy (combined with the fact she forced the Palestinian rights issues totally outside of the platform as well).

So you'll have to forgive when you come touting how progressive she is based on a platform, which she personally fought against as evidence, as evidence of how progressive she is. If you actually followed these negotiations like I did, it's pretty hard to take that claim seriously.

The 2016 Dem platform and the policies its presidential candidate is running on are arguably the most progressive coming out of a major party in the past 50 years. If you don't support those things, vote for someone else. But stop trying to appropriate the progressive label. And trying to speak for all millennials, for that matter.
Click to expand...

1.) I speak for a majority of Millennials because I've read most public opinion polls of Millennials on issues. My views are, like it or not, generally identical to the average, but usually the overwhelming majority, of Millennials (e.g. I don't find Hillary Clinton trustworthy; 76% of my cohort agrees). That being said, I notice you didn't bitch when Hillary says things like "Women are tired of..." even when her views don't correlate well with women under 45.

2.) I haven't appropriated the progressive label. Nearly everyone agrees on what "progressive" means, it's just that some people need to have temporary memory lapses about what that label means while Hillary is running. I'm choosing not to.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
It seems like you either have no college experience or are very smart because for most people university studies is hard and dedicated work not “candy”.

Also isn’t it better with a society there the CEOs’ pay a little more taxes and more children have a chance to compete for a carrier path that leads to them becoming CEOs’. Instead of a society there the CEOs’ pay a little less taxes and less children have a chance to compete for a carrier path that leads to them becoming CEOs’.

That even in countries like my country Sweden with not only free university but also strong welfare you have a lot of millionaires and also billionaires. That at the same time Sweden rank high on both innovation and competitiveness.

https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report

Even so you can of course have your reason to believe free university is a bad idea. But shouldn't you then discuss your own ideas to accomplish social mobility or discuss why you believe social mobility is bad. Instead of this thread becomes yet another thread about personalities. That even non Bernie support should acknowledge that it’s a positive thing that he wants to have a political discussion that is more about policies and less about personalities.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if it would be better if taxpayers paid for university, we are already $20 trillion in debt, and have made retirement promises to the boomers that will add about $80 trillion more, this is no time to be handing out yet more candy........candy that there is no money to pay for.

AFTER we come by some funds THEN we can talk about if taxpayers taking over this bill is a good idea or not.

We have GOT to learn to prioritize.

And budget.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Why? Because almost every ad dollar is going into negative ads, because it's the only thing Hillary (or at least the advisors she puts around herself) knows how to do: Go negative.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you think of her team's ad strategy, the candidate herself talks about the issues and her priorities every day. Just some of the past week:

Sept. 15 in Greensboro
“Like a lot of women, I have a tendency to over-prepare,” Clinton said, explaining that there are 38 in-depth policy positions on her website before quickly mentioning several key economic issues including raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women.

Clinton did use her Greensboro speech on Sept. 15 as an opportunity to talk about HB 2, saying that she is running for the LGBT teens that feel like second-class citizens after the law’s passage. Referencing the recent decisions by the NCAA and ACC to pull sports championships out of the state over the law, Clinton said the state and nation can’t afford the economic cost of bigotry. Later in her speech, she referenced North Carolina’s former voter ID law, though not by name, saying that Republican lawmakers had tried to curb voting rights in the state and that this fact alone should be enough to motivate people to turn out to vote.
Click to expand...

Sept. 16 at the Black Women's Agenda Symposium
Clinton also pointed to some of the policies she presumably saw as important to Black women, including expanded access to child care, universal pre-K, and “urban reinvestment and restructuring.” She called for criminal justice reforms to create a system “that actually delivers justice, and a future where everyone has respect for the law and is respected by the law,” and to protect “civil rights and women’s rights, LGBT rights, worker’s rights and, of course, voting rights.”
Click to expand...

Sept. 19 in Philly
She spent much of her speech ticking off policy proposals, walking through initiatives to expand broadband access and secure equal pay for women.

Perhaps the most raucous applause came when Mrs. Clinton noted her plans to eliminate tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for families with annual incomes up to $125,000, as well as her efforts to make college debt-free for all.
Click to expand...
She extolled the virtues of a tax credit plan tied to paid apprenticeships, seeming to test a few attention spans.
Click to expand...

Sept. 21 in Florida
Wednesday's address, instead, lived up to what Clinton's aides had hoped the series of speeches would be: More policy than politics.
Clinton said people with disabilities are "invisible, overlooked and undervalued" and that the United States is "falling short" in protecting their rights. . .Clinton added that as president, she would do away with the subminimum wage, urge Congress to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and launch a program to help with autism in the workplace.
Click to expand...

Sept. 21 in her NYT op-ed
I will work with Democrats and Republicans to make a historic investment in good-paying jobs — jobs in infrastructure and manufacturing, technology and innovation, small businesses and clean energy. And we need to make sure that hard work is rewarded by raising the minimum wage and finally guaranteeing equal pay for women.

If we want to get serious about poverty, we also need a national commitment to create more affordable housing. . .My plan would expand Low Income Housing Tax Credits in high-cost areas to increase our affordable housing supply, and fuel broader community development. . .

Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism.

As president, I will continue my life’s work focused on creating opportunities for children and fairness for families. We need to expand access to high-quality child care and guarantee paid leave so parents at all income levels can balance their jobs and lives. And we will work to double investments in Early Head Start and make preschool available to every 4-year-old because our children deserve the best possible start in life.
Click to expand...

These are and always have been progressive causes.
 
Greenbeard said:
Regardless of what you think of her team's ad strategy, the candidate herself talks about the issues and her priorities every day. Just some of the past week:

[...]

These are and always have been progressive causes.
Click to expand...

I like how you skirted right past the fact that she fought against a number of these issues during the primary and then nixed a whole lot more during the DNC platform committee's negotiations, but sure, let's get to these:


“Like a lot of women, I have a tendency to over-prepare,” Clinton said, explaining that there are 38 in-depth policy positions on her website before quickly mentioning several key economic issues including raising the minimum wage and equal pay for women.

Clinton did use her Greensboro speech on Sept. 15 as an opportunity to talk about HB 2 [...] saying that Republican lawmakers had tried to curb voting rights in the state and that this fact alone should be enough to motivate people to turn out to vote.
Click to expand...

I didn't say she never talked about racial equality and laws that would advance it in the areas of voting rights, affirmative action, money for HBC's, and so on. It's one of the few things she's never been inconsistent on as a policy-maker (despite the 90's, when she stood rather poorly on the issues), and no one has attacked her for her current policies on this matter, except for BLM where they would like her to address them as vigorously as Sanders did. As for LGBT, again, she's only recently come out publicly for this community, but yes, she hasn't been bad here, either, during the primary and beyond.

But either way, this doesn't address any issue that I raised, save for raising the minimum wage. I gave a large set of issues she has not addressed, the only one you raise here is raising the minimum wage. Again, Hillary Clinton is against the Fight for 15, which made it onto the DNC platform and she's still ignoring or at least selectively interpreting it. So I've already discussed the problems here, at least if you want to say that you're holding her to the "most liberal platform in 50 years." Because on this issue, she's openly disagreeing with it, and for the rest of the issues I've raised, this doesn't address it at all.

At this point, Bernie Sanders seems to be pushing the DNC agenda louder than she is. (This may in part be due to her campaigning less due to the pneumonia though, so my critique here may not be as fair, but if she wants Millennials to come back to her, she better sound a lot more like how she did during her convention speech during the debate and on the campaign trail --and she better convince news outlets to cover that message.)

Sept. 16 at the Black Women's Agenda Symposium
Clinton also pointed to some of the policies she presumably saw as important to Black women, including expanded access to child care, universal pre-K, and “urban reinvestment and restructuring.” She called for criminal justice reforms to create a system “that actually delivers justice, and a future where everyone has respect for the law and is respected by the law,” and to protect “civil rights and women’s rights, LGBT rights, worker’s rights and, of course, voting rights.”
Sept. 19 in Philly
Click to expand...

Again, kudos for finding specific speeches, but this is not what I talked about. I gave a litany of the issues relevant to Millennials that they statistically seem concerned that Hillary lacks authenticity and ideological commitment towards, as well as a large set of issues on the DNC platform that she isn't campaigning for. My claim wasn't that she's campaigning for nothing on the platform (that would be a stupid claim, but the above surely would counter it); my claim was that there's a huge section of what made the DNC platform "the most liberal in 50 years," particularly what Millennials fought for, and she's ignoring most of it. The above speech doesn't seem to address any of that.

Perhaps the most raucous applause came when Mrs. Clinton noted her plans to eliminate tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for families with annual incomes up to $125,000, as well as her efforts to make college debt-free for all.
Click to expand...

Good, I'm glad you can find at least one speech where she supports it, and I'm sure there are others, though I would still issue the same argument that she's not making this a cornerstone of her election, but it will produce votes. We'll see how strongly she supports it at the debates on Monday. But this is more or less my point: If you want to find her supporting free college, you sort of have to scouring the news for examples. Now again, the debates were in full effect then, so I'll reserve some of my judgment until the debates start.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I didn't say she never talked about racial equality and laws that would advance it in the areas of voting rights, affirmative action, money for HBC's, and so on.
Click to expand...

You said she and the Dems aren't running on a progressive platform.

But either way, this doesn't address any issue that I raised, save for raising the minimum wage. I gave a large set of issues she has not addressed, the only one you raise here is raising the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

I'm merely pointing out what she's said and written publicly in just the past week. Lots of progressive priorities.

If your point is that she hasn't mentioned every single issue she and the Dems have a position on in the past week, you're right!

Clearly social justice, infrastructure investment, child care and universal pre-K, a higher minimum wage and more economic opportunity for everyone (including the disabled), affordable housing, clean energy, etc aren't exciting or progressive enough for millennials, according to you. I disagree. But apparently you've got polling showing this stuff is boring or regressive or something, so okay.

Again, Hillary Clinton is against the Fight for 15, which made it onto the DNC platform and she's still ignoring or at least selectively interpreting it. So I've already discussed the problems here, at least if you want to say that you're holding her to the "most liberal platform in 50 years." Because on this issue, she's openly disagreeing with it, and for the rest of the issues I've raised, this doesn't address it at all.
Click to expand...

She has said she supports local and state efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 in high cost regions (which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what the Fight for 15 is). In setting a wage floor for the entire country, including low cost rural areas, however, she's clearly more comfortable setting it at $12. Which would be the highest real value for the minimum wage in history--higher than the previous real value peak in 1968.

But I get it: highest real value for the minimum wage ever isn't progressive enough, it's downright Republican! (When Bernie Sanders was calling for $10.10 in 2014, I said to myself "Who is this rightwinger?"!)

Good, I'm glad you can find at least one speech where she supports it, and I'm sure there are others, though I would still issue the same argument that she's not making this a cornerstone of her election, but it will produce votes. We'll see how strongly she supports it at the debates on Monday. But this is more or less my point: If you want to find her supporting free college, you sort of have to scouring the news for examples. Now again, the debates were in full effect then, so I'll reserve some of my judgment until the debates start.
Click to expand...

By "scour the news" you mean look at a speech she gave two days ago? It's pretty obvious you don't listen to her and you're not going to, so why pretend to care if she says shibboleth to you in speeches you don't listen to or in ads you likely don't even see? You're not making millennials look very good here.
 
justabubba said:
but where is hillary?
i do not hear her evoke Bernie's name
or the views he espouses as being aligned with her
by failing to do so, she also fails to reach out to those of us in Bernie's camp
notably, tRump does mention Bernie in some of his speeches and he speaks of him in a positive light
Click to expand...

Right. Lip service is what we need, forget about Bernie's proposals that she is now adopting, all we care about is that she kisses his ass.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton proposed on Thursday to tax the estates of ultra-rich Americans at a rate as high as 65 percent — a plan that would apply to only a handful of billionaire families, and which comes straight from the campaign playbook of Clinton's former rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Clinton had already proposed to raise estate tax rates on some millionaires to 45 percent. Her new plan goes further. It would add three new brackets: a 50 percent rate for couples with estates valued above $10 million, a 55 percent rate for couples with estates above $50 million and a 65 percent rate for those with estates above $1 billion. Republican nominee Donald Trump has called for the elimination of the estate tax entirely.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/22/hillary-clinton-just-borrowed-a-billionaire-tax-hike-from-bernie-sanders/
 
apdst said:
Communism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Duh..Neither will an aristocracy of Billionaire families. It was a pet peeve of the founders.

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
Click to expand...

Estate tax and the founding fathers: You can't take it with you | The Economist
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
That's the price of living in a free country and the existance of billionaires doesn't do any harm. On the other hand, government theft of private assets will. Communism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The founders found inherited wealth to be incompatible with democracy. I think they disagreed with you vehemently. They fled a continent that was infested with the scourge of inherited wealth and vowed it never would happen here.
 
iguanaman said:
The founders found inherited wealth to be incompatible with democracy. I think they disagreed with you vehemently. They fled a continent that was infested with the scourge of inherited wealth and vowed it never would happen here.
Click to expand...

If that were true, they would have included something about it in the Constitution. However, the whole "life, liberty and property" thing gets in the way.
 
Yeah...Bernie is ferocious....

 
minnie616 said:
Bernie Sanders appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers to discuss the upcoming election and the differences between a Donald Trump and a Hillary Clinton presidency
Click to expand...

Bigger government education and handouts. Bigger government health care. Further demonization of "the rich" and tax raises. Hand out hand out hand out, more gov more gov more gov, demonize demonize demonize. Bernie explodes, and if I listened to his rambling ass it would actually lead me to more likely vote for Trump than I am now, because it's his personality that is the large portion of what leaning me to write in in November.
 
justabubba said:
let's watch the big orange *****
Click to expand...
:lamo

You are embarrassing yourself again. Bernie ran and hid like a bitch over protesters. Trump never left the podium when a guy attacked him on stage (and was tackled by secret service agents) and went right back into his speech. Hillary went into an apoplectic fit and had to be fed lines by a handler over a protester with a sign.

Yeah...bubbster...you arent exactly selling your argument.

:lamo

 
I used to respect Bernie Sanders.

I did not necessarily agree with all his policy principles, but I liked that he was passionate, and (mainly) that he was honest.
It is my firm belief that he would have won the (D) nomination if the crooked DNC hadn't been in the bag for Hillary Clinton (and nobody else).

But since he rolled-over and sold his soul to the Party Machine, and threw his support behind a crooked, dishonest person like Hillary Clinton, I have lost all respect for the man.
Such weakness.
Such a betrayal to his die-hard fans and supporters!

So shabby.
:(
 
Who is Bernie Sanders? I seem to remember the name from the 1970s.
 
How does Sanders support Clinton after what he has said about her during the primaries?

Politics!
 
LowDown said:
I think we've already had the experience of opening the door of academe to anyone who wanted to attend college through student loans. What we found is that a lot of people are not suited for college and don't get much out of it. They end up without degrees and/or unable to get a good job.

I'd be in favor of a state college system with free tuition in which admission was granted upon scoring well in a standardized exam in addition to making good grades and good attendance in high school with a limited number of slots granted. And no fru-fru degrees allowed. That's supposed to be the standard now, but it is set aside often these days.
Click to expand...

If you want to increase the number of students that finish their university studies free university is a good idea. Because you increase the chances of getting the best students if merit is a bigger factor and the size of the parent’s wallets a smaller factor. Also if you like in Sweden have both free university and a combination of government grants and loans, the students can concentrate on their studies instead of having to work so much so they lose time and focus to do their studies. Then you of course need grades and tests do determined who goes to university just like you propose and of course good public schools.

Hawkeye10 said:
It does not matter if it would be better if taxpayers paid for university, we are already $20 trillion in debt, and have made retirement promises to the boomers that will add about $80 trillion more, this is no time to be handing out yet more candy........candy that there is no money to pay for.

AFTER we come by some funds THEN we can talk about if taxpayers taking over this bill is a good idea or not.

We have GOT to learn to prioritize.

And budget.
Click to expand...


Yes of course budgets are about prioritizing but you can’t save yourself to a strong economy. That at the same time you prioritized you have to do needed investment that makes your economy stronger. There investing in children’s education is one example of good investments. Also I understand that many Americans don’t like raising taxes. Still you Americans have showed before that you could have a strong economy and at the same time have higher taxes especially for the rich. Just like Sweden today is one of the worlds most innovative and competitive countries even if we have a lot higher taxes than USA.
 
I get a chuckle at the title, "Bernie Sanders done playing nice, erupts". If a bear crapped in the woods and nobody was around to hear it would anyone care?

:roll: :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom