• 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 for Democratic Leadership?

newperson777777 said:
So I was looking at polls online and it seems like Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular politicians currently. I think if the Democratic Party compromised more with Bernie Sanders' platform, they could do considerably better. I would even say that maybe people should be prepping for Bernie Sanders running again in 2020. It seems like Bernie Sanders' platform is a lot more relatable with other people and I think the Democratic Party as a whole could gain from supporting someone who is more popular in general.
Click to expand...

When you look at someone who is 270 pounds and five foot eleven inches that person looks like a fat ass. However when you stick that person next to someone who who is the same height but weighs 350 or even 400 pounds then that person who is 270 pounds doesn't look like that much of a fat ass anymore. By standing the 270 pound fat ass person next to the 400 pound fat ass person you made that 270 pound fat ass not look that much like a fat ass. By American standards Clinton is a leftists and Sanders is a crazy socialist. Sanders was only allowed to run to make Clinton look moderate. Sure all the online polls answered by little kids and immature adults who want free **** had Sanders polling well, but normal Americans don't go for the socialist **** that Sanders is preaching.
 
DamnYankee said:
Every socialist program is balanced on the backs of the working class.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro.

But actually, social safety net programs are balanced on the backs of all of society (every person and every entity that pays taxes) for the benefit of society. It's okay if we spend 700 billion dollars blowing up half of the world. But for one moment, someone suggests that maybe we try to do something that is in society as a whole (especially the working class that you're pretending to care so greatly about), it's time to start complaining about how much it's going to hurt them. Yeah, that's right, providing healthcare for everyone just going to destroy the working class.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Cool story, bro.

But actually, social safety net programs are balanced on the backs of all of society (every person and every entity that pays taxes) for the benefit of society. It's okay if we spend 700 billion dollars blowing up half of the world. But for one moment, someone suggests that maybe we try to do something that is in society as a whole (especially the working class that you're pretending to care so greatly about), it's time to start complaining about how much it's going to hurt them. Yeah, that's right, providing healthcare for everyone just going to destroy the working class.
Click to expand...

UHC is much better for employers too. It should be sunny to republicans as a pro business policy.
 
Winston said:
UHC is much better for employers too. It should be sunny to republicans as a pro business policy.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Democrats and Republicans eat out of the palms of the private healthcare industry.

Chomsky stated this perfectly. Paraphrasing, "In the US, roughly 50%-70% of the US wants a government-guaranteed right to healthcare, depending on the poll. Now in the mainstream US news outlets, it is always said 'I wish we could have universal healthcare, but there's no political will for universal healthcare.' And they're right. The privileged elites don't like it, therefore there's no 'political will' for it to happen."
 
FieldTheorist said:
The problem is that Democrats and Republicans eat out of the palms of the private healthcare industry.

Chomsky stated this perfectly. Paraphrasing, "In the US, roughly 50%-70% of the US wants a government-guaranteed right to healthcare, depending on the poll. Now in the mainstream US news outlets, it is always said 'I wish we could have universal healthcare, but there's no political will for universal healthcare.' And they're right. The privileged elites don't like it, therefore there's no 'political will' for it to happen."
Click to expand...

How dare you besmirch the integrity of our establishment by suggesting that the money they take has any influence on policy!
 
The Democratic party is already moving towards Bernie's platform. After he endorsed Clinton we saw her start to rail against the one percent, address college costs, and back the fight for fifteen. Now we have multiple people who are considered potential candidates for 2020 backing Bernie up on his single payer legislation. The real question is how far is the party willing to move to gain some popularity points? I bet they don't talk about wall street or embrace his foreign policy. Everything else is fair game.
 
newperson777777 said:
So I was looking at polls online and it seems like Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular politicians currently. I think if the Democratic Party compromised more with Bernie Sanders' platform, they could do considerably better. I would even say that maybe people should be prepping for Bernie Sanders running again in 2020. It seems like Bernie Sanders' platform is a lot more relatable with other people and I think the Democratic Party as a whole could gain from supporting someone who is more popular in general.
Click to expand...

You have a very narrow understanding of things. There is a reason why Hillary Clinton won the primary, even though she cheated. The superdelegates are generally not socialists. Most of the Democratic members of Congress are not socialists. Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist. Chuck Schumer is not a socialist. Tom Perez is not a socialist. Like many candidates, you get caught up too much in the hooplah. Whenever a candidate has a rally that draws 20,000 people they get so excited about the turnout, forgetting that millions of people vote and 20,000 people at your rally doesn't really mean a damn thing. It's diddly squat. Have you already forgotten about the Libertarians, the Tea Party, The Freedom Caucus, etc.? While they yield some power they have no chance of ever being president.
 
MrPeanut said:
The Democratic party is already moving towards Bernie's platform. After he endorsed Clinton we saw her start to rail against the one percent, address college costs, and back the fight for fifteen. Now we have multiple people who are considered potential candidates for 2020 backing Bernie up on his single payer legislation. The real question is how far is the party willing to move to gain some popularity points? I bet they don't talk about wall street or embrace his foreign policy. Everything else is fair game.
Click to expand...

It's true that they moved towards Bernie's platform after he endorsed Clinton. However, from my perspective, Clinton held back from endorsing his platform fully and it seemed a lot of Bernie supporters did not actually potentially end up supporting Clinton. I felt like the Democratic party significantly lacked the enthusiasm that Bernie's movement did even after the Democratic nomination.

Most recent changes in the Democratic Party have supported the political establishment. For example, the chairman of the DNC is Tom Perez, who is more of an establishment candidate, rather than Keith Ellison, who tended to be more of a Bernie supporter. I think the Democrats have a long way to go before fully embracing the popular movement that lead to Bernie Sander's rise in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
And the idea Sanders was popular, when he could not even beat the second place candidate in the national election, is kinda silly.
Click to expand...

He didn't run in the national election...he lost the primary but had he not, I'd bet he would have retained a number of the switchover's from Obama to Trump...he would be able to be a better contrast...not near the baggage as Hillary...sure he's an Independent who strongly allies with the Democrats...a DINO against a RINO...if Trump can pull support with Republicans, what's silly is to expect that Bernie couldn't do the same with the Dems if Hillary were out of the picture...granted, he didn't pull off the tougher sell first.

I would have voted for him over Trump for sure and I would never vote for Hillary...or Trump...just sayin'
 
Fenton said:
He's popular with his base, with younger Americans who are typically more ideological and that lack the wisdom and experience to think logically and vote rationally.

Dont cofuse the support of a bunch of young inexperienced kids with the rest of the American polulation

To everyone else, he's a leftist hack, he's anti-American and anti-Constitution and if he had his way would turn back over 200 years real progress and do away with the true revolutionary ideas and principles this Nation was founded upon

There's nothing progressive about him, he's a old school Socialist demagogue using the same old devisive class warfare shtick that all Left wing autortarians use to garner the support of naive populaces all over the world.

He's no different than Castro or Chavez in that respect and its why his rhetoric comes accross as so insulting to most Americans

As for the Democrats getting behin him ? Nothing would make this Conservative happier.

It would be the end of a already greatly marginalized Democratc party and a huge victory for the right
Click to expand...

That's odd considering I ran into a number of older folks such as myself who wanted change but weren't foolish enough to buy into Trump's propaganda campaign.
 
Perhaps Bernie Sanders for President and an establishment Democratic candidate with pro-business leanings for VP. Or an establishment candidate for President who voices a platform more inline with Bernie's platform. Either way, making more significant and material contributions to Bernie's platform could potentially help the Democrats become more popular, rather than alienating a large chunk of the population who seem like the only people excited about the political process.
 
newperson777777 said:
It's true that they moved towards Bernie's platform after he endorsed Clinton. However, from my perspective, Clinton held back from endorsing his platform fully and it seemed a lot of Bernie supporters did not actually potentially end up supporting Clinton. I felt like the Democratic party significantly lacked the enthusiasm that Bernie's movement did even after the Democratic nomination.

Most recent changes in the Democratic Party have supported the political establishment. For example, the chairman of the DNC is Tom Perez, who is more of an establishment candidate, rather than Keith Ellison, who tended to be more of a Bernie supporter. I think the Democrats have a long way to go before fully embracing the popular movement that lead to Bernie Sander's rise in the first place.
Click to expand...
They aren't embracing everything Bernie, but the latest support for his Medicare for all bill is a huge step in his direction. I'm shocked so many people have supported it. The part I put in bold in your comment was because it really isn't true that some large amount of Bernie's supporters didn't end up voting for Clinton. In fact, more of Bernie's supporters by percentage voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in 08'. She's been lying about that recently so I thought I'd put that out there. Perez did make Ellison his deputy chair which is a good faith move.
 
MrPeanut said:
They aren't embracing everything Bernie, but the latest support for his Medicare for all bill is a huge step in his direction. I'm shocked so many people have supported it. The part I put in bold in your comment was because it really isn't true that some large amount of Bernie's supporters didn't end up voting for Clinton. In fact, more of Bernie's supporters by percentage voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in 08'. She's been lying about that recently so I thought I'd put that out there. Perez did make Ellison his deputy chair which is a good faith move.
Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for the fact that more of Bernie's supporters voted for Clinton vs. Clinton supporters voted for Obama? I searched online and after looking through several articles I wasn't able to find it.

I think the fact that the Democratic Party as a whole hasn't more embraced Bernie's platform has curbed the enthusiasm a little bit. For example, Clinton publicly attacking Bernie on occasion doesn't help. It's true that Keith Ellison got made deputy chairman, but it's the fact that he lost to Tom Perez which curbs the enthusiasm, especially if the vote just consists of Democratic political elite.
 
Renae said:
Socialism is the nightmare we avoid keeping people like Bernie out of power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, our Capitalistic health care is so much better for everyone...instead we are stuck with so much winning I can hardly stand it...just like Trump said it would be...who knew it was so complicated...Trump got us nothing but a mess with bull**** talking points...as for his real base, his Capitalistic cronies...that's another story.
 
Renae said:
Go hard left please, embrace the Bern. Nothing would ensure the GOP gains more seats in the House, Senate and State Houses.
Click to expand...

Pretty please...... A socialist platform. Wonderful!!

"Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word," Sanders said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that."
 
AYSM said:
Yeah, our Capitalistic health care is so much better for everyone...instead we are stuck with so much winning I can hardly stand it...just like Trump said it would be...who knew it was so complicated...Trump got us nothing but a mess with bull**** talking points...as for his real base, his Capitalistic cronies...that's another story.
Click to expand...

Guess people who want socialism should try out Venezuela. Socialism has completely destroyed that country.
The socialist economy created this disaster.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Looks like you got the responses I expected from the loony hard right with more to come.

On one hand I see the GOP pouring on their propaganda lie machine on Sanders just like they did to Clinton. That said the republican brand may have been hurt so badly by the sphincter in chief it may not matter who the dems run -- he or she will be a shoe in. We live in interesting times will be an understatement in 2020. The only think I will say for sure is if Trump runs again he will be smashed. I doubt if he even could make it out of the primaries.
Click to expand...

I could see a repeat of 2008 in 2020.

Bush was such a awful president, that ANY Democrat was going to get elected in 2008. The same thing will very likely happen with Trump (assuming he even finishes his term).
 
Renae said:
"Looney hard right"? You amuse me.
Click to expand...

The "looney hard right" is anyone who believes in freedom, liberty, smaller responsible gov't, lower taxes, less oppressive regulations.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Guess people who want socialism should try out Venezuela. Socialism has completely destroyed that country.
The socialist economy created this disaster.
Click to expand...

Seems like a pretty weak argument when we are talking about evolving toward a program that the rest of the developed world embraces...why do you feel that we would turn out like Venezuela when there are so many other examples to make an alternative case?

Furthermore...simply labeling single payer as "socialist" does not take into account that many of the directions we could go can provide for single payer that includes a capitalist market place...just some caps to work within.

Not that I doubt we could devolve in a similar direction but it won't be over healthcare.
 
AYSM said:
Seems like a pretty weak argument when we are talking about evolving toward a program that the rest of the developed world embraces...why do you feel that we would turn out like Venezuela when there are so many other examples to make an alternative case?

Furthermore...simply labeling single payer as "socialist" does not take into account that many of the directions we could go can provide for single payer that includes a capitalist market place...just some caps to work within.

Not that I doubt we could devolve in a similar direction but it won't be over healthcare.
Click to expand...

Look at Canada and their Socialized medicine. What did that get them rationed care and lack of innovation. Run of the mill illness and you probably do OK
but any major illness/accident and you will be waiting for a long time to get you treatment. That's why many Canadians come here to receive treatment in a timely
manner.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Look at Canada and their Socialized medicine. What did that get them rationed care and lack of innovation. Run of the mill illness and you probably do OK
but any major illness/accident and you will be waiting for a long time to get you treatment. That's why many Canadians come here to receive treatment in a timely
manner.
Click to expand...

Canada is like Venezuela? We can do better!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom