Like I predicted, the right wing has started the attacks on Bernie Sanders

Surrealistik said:

So when he explicitly said later on in the 70s that he wasn't interested in nationalizing the economy, and for approximately 50 years never championed or tabled anything legislatively that could be reasonably considered Marxist or socialist, we're still somehow to believe that there's a reasonable possibility he's a Marxist?

Click to expand...

Every part of his 2020 platform increases the size and scope of the state. Like all socialists, he wants as much central planning as possible.

You do understand that the tweet in question was rhetoric pointing out and responding to the explicit and egregious failings of a private utility company, right?

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't "rhetoric". Here's the twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/1188541919485399040?lang=en

Watch the video as well. Chris Hayes says to Bernie (paraphrased) "You basically propose a federal takeover of the whole thing (meaning energy production)." and Bernie says yes and nods in agreement.

That means nationalization. I don't know how much clearer he has to be for you to acknowledge this point.

You absolutely can if the singlepayer exercises its power of negotiation and economy of scale; this is precisely how it's done elsewhere in the world

Click to expand...

Healthcare is a service, it's all labor. You think everyone in the industry is going to just roll over and take a 50% pay cut? Furthermore, his idiotic plan is going to add 40 to 60 million people who are currently under-insured, so demand for healthcare is going to spike through the roof. Prices are going to up, not down. On top of all that, Bernie doesn't care about prices, he's an economic illiterate.

No they're not, unless you consider regulatory powers to be a level of control equivalent to socialism,

Click to expand...

The verb regulate means to control, and that's exactly what government regulation does. With regulation, as with socialism, the dose makes the poison. One prominent example are housing markets in liberal states such as California, where government control via regulation and zoning greatly reduces the number of housing units, thus sending housing prices into the stratosphere and creating hardship and misery for the people who live there.

See above. The most egregious and suspect things Sanders once espoused support for in his youth have been long discarded.

Click to expand...

Uh, he was 44 in 1985 when he made the breadline comment, and when asked twice by Anderson Cooper if he believes the Cuban revolution benefited the Cuban people, he refused to answer the question. Twice.

GreatNews2night said:

I didn't blame anybody. I just said that his liabilities will be exploited (or actually, are being exploited already). What's the source, I didn't speculate about it (and what you are doing is nothing more than a speculation - do you have any evidence to back it up? No? Yeah, I didn't think so).

Click to expand...

"I do think he has liabilities that will be exploited by the right wing media and PACs" is speculation. My source is the text message on my telephone from the Bernie campaign asking if I would be interested in becoming involved with Veterans for Bernie that I got a week before this Bernie hates veterans optic come out. This is not sheer coincidence. This is a democratic candidate power move to disrupt Bernie's efforts.

Joni Ernst making an idiot of herself on the Sunday talk shows. Senators = Congress people with 6 year terms and better haircuts these days.

Drawdown said:

"I do think he has liabilities that will be exploited by the right wing media and PACs" is speculation. My source is the text message on my telephone from the Bernie campaign asking if I would be interested in becoming involved with Veterans for Bernie that I got a week before this Bernie hates veterans optic come out. This is not sheer coincidence. This is a democratic candidate power move to disrupt Bernie's efforts.

Click to expand...

I find your "evidence" to be extremely lacking, sorry.

"I do think he has liabilities that will be exploited by the right wing media and PACs" is not speculation. It's a prediction that has a rather 100% chance of materializing. Not even 99.9%, but rather 100%, so it's as close to factual as it gets (and actually it has started already, making it even more factual, as the link in my OP demonstrates, of a right wing publication already attacking him). Why, do you expect that he won't be attacked by the right wing if he wins the nomination? LOL, that would be a first. And his liabilities are factual. In other threads I listed a large number of them, things that are in his past and are demonstrable, there is a record, so, it's not speculation, it's factual. Given that since, I've changed my mind and stopped attacking Bernie myself, because in-fighting among the people who want to defeat Trump (count me in) only gives ammunition to the right wing and does the right wing job for them, I'm no longer interested in listing those liabilities. But yes, they are factual and they exist; they are not speculation.

Now, saying that this right wing article published by The National Review (a right-wing publication) is a plant by Democrats, *is* speculation. Show me the evidence for that, not just an unrelated Bernie campaign text message, and I'll believe you.

Surrealistik said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:

When did he say he was going to 'nationalize all utilities and ISPs?'. To preempt something I'm sure you'll point to, just so we're abundantly clear, a single tweet that rhetorically talks about considering public ownership of major utilities is not a policy platform for nationalization.

Moreover, singlepayer != 'government takeover of the healthcare industry'. It does mean a majority government takeover of the healthcare insurer/payer sub-industry however.

Rent control and the GND are not nationalization of industry or commerce.

Lastly, I would challenge you to prove your asinine and essentially baseless assertion that he wants to nationalize everything.

If anything he's less ambitious in terms of nationalizing than say the Norwegians who have run a model and highly successful nationalized oil industry (yes, it is publicly traded, but the State is a super-majority stakeholder and will not relinquish control) in addition to a cost-effective, efficient healthcare system where the healthcare industry was indeed primarily 'taken over' and is overwhelmingly owned, controlled, funded and administered by the government.

Click to expand...

Some excellent points, but Bernie has nonetheless lost his marbles.

GreatNews2night said:

You don't know what the context of what I'm saying is. In previous discussions with many here, I said I disputed the notion that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in 2016, based on a poll that showed him with better numbers against Trump, than Hillary's. I said, that's because Trump doesn't want to attack Sanders because he knows that Sanders is weakening the more viable Clinton, and Clinton doesn't want to attack Sanders because she is afraid of alienating his supporters and make them defect to Trump in the general election (which by the way, did happen). So, Sanders had the luxury of running a campaign without being seriously attacked, which artificially inflated his numbers.

I said, as soon as he wins the nomination or becomes a threat to win it, vicious attacks will start. QED.

Click to expand...

So, the more plausible a candidate is, the more their opponents will attack them. Your political instincts ate uncanny!

3leftsdoo said:

Some excellent points, but Bernie has nonetheless lost his marbles.

Click to expand...

I'm curious. If it comes to Bernie vs. Trump in November, who will you vote for, or will you abstain or vote third party?

I have some trouble understanding your position in the political spectrum, 3leftsdoo. Sometimes you seem like an equal opportunity machine gun, mowing down everybody.

Digger said:

So, the more plausible a candidate is, the more their opponents will attack them. Your political instincts ate uncanny!

Click to expand...

I was making a point. It's a continuation of previous discussions. You're new here, you wouldn't know (your registration: October 2019). Bernie supporters had insisted over and over in saying that he'd have beaten Trump in 2016 based on hypothetical polls, and I had said, that's because he wasn't viable therefore wasn't being attacked so his poll numbers were high, but as soon as he turns into a serious threat, he will. It's simply that.

Yes, I was just confirming common sense, but that was in opposition to people who weren't displaying that common sense, so this thread is a bit of "I told you so."

Get it now?

So, no need to be sarcastic about my position. My political instincts are rather what they should be: the usual. It's the political instincts of people who thought Bernie was immune to attacks, not noticing that he wasn't being attacked in 2016 because he wasn't seen as a serious threat, who should be blamed here; not me. See, their denial is because they thought that Bernie was a serious threat and the only reason why he didn't succeed is because the nomination was "stolen" from him, forgetting that he was behind by 3.7 million popular votes, and the nomination was never to be his to start with, not just because of any DNC shenanigans, but rather because the vast majority of Dem primary voters did not want him to be the nominee. He simply didn't have the votes. So, he wasn't a serious threat. They kept saying he was unblemished therefore wasn't being attacked because attacks wouldn't stick. I said, nope, you'll see, if one day he becomes a viable candidate, attacks will start and will be vicious. QED.

ttwtt78640 said:

Are you kidding me? That is akin to saying that taking a candy bar without paying for it is just as much an act of theft as emptying out the cash register or stealing a car. Both scale an motive are extremely important for murder (a level of homicide) as well as other (property) crimes.

Click to expand...

Consider a tract from the Jewish Sanhedren: "Therefore, Adam [from whom all humanity descended] was created singly, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world and whoever saves a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world."
The Origins of the Precept “Whoever Saves a Life Saves the World” >> Mosaic
No, I am not kidding you.

Jean-s said:

I wrote nothing about death due to negligence. I deliberately chose a political murder of a child. You have misrepresented my opinion. I reject the hierarchy of murder because it values some lives over others.

Click to expand...

I was using negligence as an example of causing death being on a scale rather than a single standard. The negligent homicide example would be at the most opposite end of the spectrum from first degree murder or terrorism.

GreatNews2night said:

Bernie Sanders told Ninth Graders the U.S. Committed Acts in Vietnam ‘Almost as Bad as what Hitler Did’

It shows that they now fear the good senator from Vermont. Interesting. I am worried because I do think he has liabilities that will be exploited by the right wing media and PACs. The general election will be a wicked fight, and to beat Trump, all hands will have to be on deck.

I don't think that Bernie is currently the most equipped candidate to beat Trump, if he wins the nomination, but he could be, if he picks well his veep (someone for example like Stacey Abrams who would enhance his appeal for women and minorities, and would reassure those who think he is too old and post-heart attack and might die early in his term; Abrams is only 46 years old).

Click to expand...

Sorry to say but the left wing party that still calls itself Democrat has a very sorry slate of candidates. This is why the impeachment of Trump over Ukraine was so stupid. He had no concerns over Biden and even less concerns over Sanders.

GreatNews2night said:

Always a pleasure to read Cardinal, a lucid thinker who brings to our forum his vast experience from his decades practicing Law. It's good to have you here, Cardinal!

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I haven’t practiced law a day in my life, and you’d do well to have somebody else represent you if you’re ever on trial.

Unless the jury has already announced that they’ll acquit you no matter what, in which case, **** it, I’d be happy to defend you in court. It would be for a good laugh.

Cardinal said:

I was using negligence as an example of causing death being on a scale rather than a single standard. The negligent homicide example would be at the most opposite end of the spectrum from first degree murder or terrorism.

Click to expand...

I posted elsewhere a tract from the Jewish Sanhedrin which makes my point: "Therefore, Adam [from whom all humanity descended] was created singly, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world and whoever saves a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world."
The Origins of the Precept “Whoever Saves a Life Saves the World” >> Mosaic

Jean-s said:

There is something lost when we entertain a hierarchy of murder based on scale or motive because the death of even one person is as great a loss as millions. It is not to minimize the the evil of the Final Solution to recognize that an innocent child shot in the back of the head by a Shiite militiaman is equally horrid.

Click to expand...

Moronic Holocaust denial.

Good4Nothin said:

Bad things happened in the Holocaust, and bad things happened in Vietnam and in every war.

Click to expand...

Pathetic. You're like a Trump supporter. Fine people, huh?

Airyaman said:

That's not evidence, and you know it. In fact, in the article it says "In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the nomination as the clear preference of the majority of her party’s electorate. She won 55 percent of the primary vote, as opposed to just 43 percent for Sanders, which is not an especially narrow margin"

Click to expand...

Sanders is lying? :lamo

apdst said:

Sanders is lying? :lamo

Click to expand...

Yes...

GreatNews2night said:

I find your "evidence" to be extremely lacking, sorry.

"I do think he has liabilities that will be exploited by the right wing media and PACs" is not speculation. It's a prediction that has a rather 100% chance of materializing. Not even 99.9%, but rather 100%, so it's as close to factual as it gets (and actually it has started already, making it even more factual, as the link in my OP demonstrates, of a right wing publication already attacking him). Why, do you expect that he won't be attacked by the right wing if he wins the nomination? LOL, that would be a first. And his liabilities are factual. In other threads I listed a large number of them, things that are in his past and are demonstrable, there is a record, so, it's not speculation, it's factual. Given that since, I've changed my mind and stopped attacking Bernie myself, because in-fighting among the people who want to defeat Trump (count me in) only gives ammunition to the right wing and does the right wing job for them, I'm no longer interested in listing those liabilities. But yes, they are factual and they exist; they are not speculation.

Now, saying that this right wing article published by The National Review (a right-wing publication) is a plant by Democrats, *is* speculation. Show me the evidence for that, not just an unrelated Bernie campaign text message, and I'll believe you.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you believe me or not and predictions are speculations :doh

Your position is just counter to reality. Trump will NEVER take Bernie's core base. If he could, he would wait until it is bigger. There is no upside here for the GOP. Only the DNC establishment has a motive to be taking down Bernie. With Warren sinking, taking down Bernie will move the progressives as a non-factor hostage. Only Biden would have the motive and machine to pull this off unchecked.

ecofarm said:

Moronic Holocaust denial.

Click to expand...

Stop being so bloody ignorant.

Jean-s said:

Stop being so bloody ignorant.

Click to expand...

That's your childish idiotic hateful behavior, not mine.

Holocaust minimization is Holocaust denial. Learn something today.

ecofarm said:

That's your childish idiotic hateful behavior, not mine.

Holocaust minimization is Holocaust denial. Learn something today.

Click to expand...

Ballocks.

Jean-s said:

Ballocks.

Click to expand...

Not bollocks. ****ing learn.

To minimize the Holocaust is to deny the atrocity of the whole. Thus, minimizing the Holocaust is Holocaust denial. When we pretend the Holocaust was just a shot to the back of a head, or just an atrocity in Vietnam, we ignore the grand scale, unprecedented, of atrocities committed in the Holocaust. We ignore the entire state engine behind the atrocities, we ignore the scale of the atrocities. We ignore so much about the Holocaust when we pretend it's like a single atrocity or lesser atrocities.

We must always remember the Holocaust was about the state extermination of an ethnic group. It was done via cattle cars and ovens and poison gas killing hundreds of people in the course of a day for no reason other than being Jewish or another minority.

You must come to understand that Holocaust minimization is, in fact, Holocaust denial.

Personal growth is now yours to have if you want it.

Jean-s said:

Consider a tract from the Jewish Sanhedren: "Therefore, Adam [from whom all humanity descended] was created singly, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world and whoever saves a single life in Israel is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world."
The Origins of the Precept “Whoever Saves a Life Saves the World” >> Mosaic
No, I am not kidding you.

Click to expand...

That biblical law is not applicable to any country that I am aware of.

Cardinal said:

Thanks, but I haven’t practiced law a day in my life, and you’d do well to have somebody else represent you if you’re ever on trial.

Unless the jury has already announced that they’ll acquit you no matter what, in which case, **** it, I’d be happy to defend you in court. It would be for a good laugh.

Click to expand...

Aren't you a lawyer? I thought you said so. Maybe I'm mixing up this aspect of your biography with someone else's. But I'm not mixing up your posting history with someone else. Your posts are always very good.

Drawdown said:

I don't care if you believe me or not and predictions are speculations :doh

Your position is just counter to reality. Trump will NEVER take Bernie's core base. If he could, he would wait until it is bigger. There is no upside here for the GOP. Only the DNC establishment has a motive to be taking down Bernie. With Warren sinking, taking down Bernie will move the progressives as a non-factor hostage. Only Biden would have the motive and machine to pull this off unchecked.

Click to expand...

Trump will never take Bernie's core base? He did just that in 2016, at least partially, 10% of Bernie or Bust supporters voted for him, and another chunk abstained. 10% might not appear to be much but the numbers were higher than the difference that favored him in the three states that gave him his EC victory.

The thing is, with Bernie's chances of winning the nomination increasing, the right-wingers are already getting a head start in the matter of attacks, to create a lasting impression. You repeat a lie too many times, people start believing that it is true. So starting sooner rather than later has advantages.

Like I said, it's not even speculation anymore when it's already happening; the sheer National Review article I linked to, is already proof that it is factual that the right wing is attacking Bernie Sanders now.