• 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!

[W:165] Bernie supporters: If Bernie doesn't win the nomination....

If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, will you vote for the candidate that does?


  • Total voters
    31
I read the link you provided. At no point did it refute anything I wrote.

Did you click the Sydney Ember interview link? I believe that’s what I asked.

I'm assuming you meant to write "what" did Bernie do, specifically, in which case

No, you go through the links and pull up Sander’s exact quotes that I need to address that would otherwise sink Sanders in the general election if his supporters didn’t address them. I read about half of them, I didn’t find anything worth responding to. So please give me your best quotes that are so terrible.

I don't like his trade wars, I don't like his bailouts, I don't like his sclerotic and weak defense policies, I don't like that he wants to expand the federal government, I don't like that he's a sucker when it comes to dictator thugs like Erdogan and terrorist-supporting groups like the Taliban, I don't like his abuse of others, I don't like his gun grabbing, I don't like his

Trump is a gun grabber?

Pro-Life ones. It' the one thing I can't justify compromising on.

So would you say that you love Trump’s SCOTUS appointments and filling of the lower courts with right-wing ideologues?

And not so distant past.

Okay, give me the quote so I can address it.

And, as I have told you multiple times, that is going to be something that he's going to get hit on, it's a vulnerability of his, and you and the rest of his supporters in this thread are actively demonstrating that you are woefully under-prepared to respond effectively, just as he has been.

One of your links was Washington Examiner: Bernie Sanders praised communist Cuba and the Soviet Union in the 1980s

Quote the part that I’m supposed to respond to.
 
Bernie is going to win this game
 
Did you click the Sydney Ember interview link? I believe that’s what I asked.

No, you go through the links and pull up Sander’s exact quotes that I need to address that would otherwise sink Sanders in the general election if his supporters didn’t address them. I read about half of them, I didn’t find anything worth responding to. So please give me your best quotes that are so terrible.

Okay, give me the quote so I can address it.

One of your links was Washington Examiner: Bernie Sanders praised communist Cuba and the Soviet Union in the 1980s

Quote the part that I’m supposed to respond to.

Let me see if I understand what you are insisting on correctly:

1. If the links you provide don't, actually, provide what you say they do, you want me to drill down into each of those sources sub-links until hopefully one of them does,

But

2. You cannot even be bothered to read the posts I write in detail, much less any of the links themselves.

I think you are confusing "something so terrible even I, a Bernie fan and emotionally-invested supporter, couldn't stomach it" with "something that will be a real vulnerability in the general".


Trump is a gun grabber?

"Take them first, Due Process second".


So would you say that you love Trump’s SCOTUS appointments and filling of the lower courts with right-wing ideologues?

Judges is one of the few issues I'd say he's done well, mostly because he hasn't done it, but rather farmed that task out to the Federalist Society.
 
Let me see if I understand what you are insisting on correctly:

1. If the links you provide don't, actually, provide what you say they do, you want me to drill down into each of those sources sub-links until hopefully one of them does,

But

2. You cannot even be bothered to read the posts I write in detail, much less any of the links themselves.

I think you are confusing "something so terrible even I, a Bernie fan and emotionally-invested supporter, couldn't stomach it" with "something that will be a real vulnerability in the general".




"Take them first, Due Process second".




Judges is one of the few issues I'd say he's done well, mostly because he hasn't done it, but rather farmed that task out to the Federalist Society.

All this talk about Sanders praising communism in the 1980s is a bit thin to me .

After all didn't Trump sell weapons to Saudi Arabia ? not too long ago couple of years maybe?
Wasn't some of the 9/11 terrorist from Saudi Arabia ?
Could there be Muslim Terrorist in Saudi Arabia ?
Muslim terrorist can be found in any nation ,but the odds of them being found in a Muslim country are much lower.
So if we are going to judge candidates and parties based on past mistakes we gonna be here awhile Right and Left .:peace
 
Perhaps you're the one who didn't read cpwill's post. I refuted it with a link, easily:

Bernie Sanders Puts The New York Times to Shame - Truthdig



I wasn't the one who brought up Reagan. It's right in cpwill's post.

Very well, you have chosen to dig your heels in the sand. As he and I both said, don't say we didn't warn you. :shrug:

P.S. When cpwill and I can agree on any political issue, you should probably listen instead going full Dunning-Kruger. ;)

By the way, who was right on foreign policy: Bernie Sanders or Ronald Reagan?

I dare you to answer it.

Start a new thread if you wish to discuss this. Feel free to link me so I can supply you with an answer. :)
 
I’d love the chance to vote for Sherrod Brown again. He was the candidate I most wanted to see enter this race.

But a compromise candidate (who didn’t compete in a single primary) coming out of a deadlocked convention in this era seems like a bit of a stretch.

I could see a deal to get a mainstream Democratic candidate with a progressive VP, or the other way around, depending on how the primary votes shake out. Something like Bloomberg + Stacey Abrams.
 
All this talk about Sanders praising communism in the 1980s is a bit thin to me .

After all didn't Trump sell weapons to Saudi Arabia ? not too long ago couple of years maybe?
Wasn't some of the 9/11 terrorist from Saudi Arabia ?
Could there be Muslim Terrorist in Saudi Arabia ?
Muslim terrorist can be found in any nation ,but the odds of them being found in a Muslim country are much lower.
So if we are going to judge candidates and parties based on past mistakes we gonna be here awhile Right and Left .:peace

The point that he's trying to make is that Sanders' praise for Communists might not bother you, but it will bother a lot of voters in crucial swing states. You think Sanders has any chance whatsoever to win back the WWC with his pro-Communist rhetoric?
 
The point that he's trying to make is that Sanders' praise for Communists might not bother you, but it will bother a lot of voters in crucial swing states. You think Sanders has any chance whatsoever to win back the WWC with his pro-Communist rhetoric?

Hey, just out of curiosity - as I recall, Florida is one of the states that hosts a county where, had Hillary won 78000 votes across five counties, she would have won.

By any chance, are there any Cubans in Florida with perhaps a particular lack of affinity for Castro? Asking for an incumbent Presidential campaign.
 
Last edited:
Hey, just out of curiosity - as I recall, Florida in one of the states that hosts a county where, had Hillary won 78000 votes across five counties, she would have won.

By any chance, are there any Cubans in Florida with perhaps a particular lack of affinity for Castro? Asking for an incumbent Presidential campaign.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

giphy.gif
 
Possibly, but Trump doesn't have to defend Reagan's foreign policy. Sanders does have to defend his defense and cheerleading of brutal murderers.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

The hell he doesn't. ALL Republicans have to defend Reagan, or disown him.
I disowned Hillary, lots of Democrats have disowned Hillary.

So you either have to defend him (and Somoza, Battista, Franco, et al) or you have to disown him.
And Trumpers must now defend Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, and Putin.
And so does Trump, because he now OWNS the ENTIRE Republican Party.

Anyone that dares to criticize Trump or oppose his values and policies is now targeted.
In fact, Trump is now vowing to pursue his enemies to the point where TrumpCo is now seizing dictatorial control over basic core institutions, agencies, even the rule of law itself and bending all to his personal political agenda, and he is using them as weapons to defend himself from justice.

Our constitutional values are in free-fall, and you don't appear to see it.
 
Hey, just out of curiosity - as I recall, Florida is one of the states that hosts a county where, had Hillary won 78000 votes across five counties, she would have won.

By any chance, are there any Cubans in Florida with perhaps a particular lack of affinity for Castro? Asking for an incumbent Presidential campaign.

Were those Cuban Floridians ever Democrats?
NOPE.
An overwhelming majority of them have always been Republicans, from the moment their feet were dry.
And in Cuba, many enjoyed the spoils of Battista's regime, so they wouldn't be expected to support any leadership that did not include a healthy heaping spoonful of authoritarian fascism.

The fact that it became so bad that it TOOK a bloody communist revolution to put an end to Battista is a sign that Battista demanded so much help from the US that even the Mafia jumped in, mostly with impunity.

Defend Battista, defend the Cosa Nostra, defend authoritarian fascism.
I don't blame expat Cubans in the least for hating Castro but Castro was a desperate response to over two generations of brutal right wing repression, most often against unarmed peasants.
Perhaps if the peasants had been able to arm themselves maybe Battista would have been overthrown in a more organic and even-handed process. One thing's for sure, the political process and any shred of democracy was notably absent so you couldn't very well expect Battista to be voted out of office.

The Cubans who enjoyed the Battista regime are casualties of war.
It took a war to end Battista's regime.

Armies are victorious in these sort of matters but the people seldom are, it's a miracle when it happens to any extent.
Mostly it is a power vacuum that is filled by rough men often with an equally brutal lust for power and control.

DEFEND the Mafia in Cuba for us.
DEFEND FASCISM for us.
 
The hell he doesn't. ALL Republicans have to defend Reagan, or disown him.

....no. You may think that's important for consistency, but, as a simple matter of politics, Sanders trying to deflect from his own words and actions by trying to tie the current GOP president to one from 40 years ago? It reinforces his age (maybe not fair, since both men are in their 70s, but it does), and the worry that he's out of touch. Trump can justifiably respond to claims of warmongering by pointing to his repeated attempts to get us out of confirms in the Middle East.

And Trumpers must now defend Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, and Putin.

Now THAT is actually a line of defense for Bernie, because it ties directly to Trump's words and actions.


And so does Trump, because he now OWNS the ENTIRE Republican Party.

In fact, Trump is now vowing to pursue his enemies to the point where TrumpCo is now seizing dictatorial control over basic core institutions, agencies, even the rule of law itself and bending all to his personal political agenda, and he is using them as weapons to defend himself from justice.

See, hyperbole isn't going to be a good line of defense for Trump opponents, anymore than it was for Obama opponents, who made similar claims.

Our constitutional values are in free-fall, and you don't appear to see it.

Our Constitutional values have been falling for a long time. You're just now only freaking out about it because it's in the hands of an Executive you dislike. Let me know when you oppose it when it concentrates power in the hands of Democrats :roll:
 
Last edited:
Were those Cuban Floridians ever Democrats?
NOPE.
An overwhelming majority of them have always been Republicans, from the moment their feet were dry.
And in Cuba, many enjoyed the spoils of Battista's regime, so they wouldn't be expected to support any leadership that did not include a healthy heaping spoonful of authoritarian fascism.


While I'm sure this felt emotionally validating for you, if the response to having Bernie's past words and actions defending and cheerleading murderous thugs is to angrily attack swing state voters who are refugees from those regimes....

Well, personally I'd encourage Bernie to do it, because I want to discredit his wing of the Democratic party, but generally I think it rather reinforces the point that neither he nor his supporters seem to have an effective response to this particular vulnerability.
 
Last edited:
The point that he's trying to make is that Sanders' praise for Communists might not bother you, but it will bother a lot of voters in crucial swing states. You think Sanders has any chance whatsoever to win back the WWC with his pro-Communist rhetoric?

Ever hear of a little something called the IRAN CONTRAS?
Did this effect voting or voters time after time in the future?
How about this one tapes what tapes>
How many of Reagan's or Bush's administration was under investigation how many of Trumps administration has been or is under investigation.
READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES taxes were raised proven. although 1000 and 1 excuses on why TAXES WERE RAISED.
Scandals of the past area dime a dozen give me an president or ex president I'll find a mistaken phrases spoken or a jester and I can spin where it will fall on half the commandments being broken. Mudslinging and trash talking is easy especially if you have back up you stand alone it's a bit more difficult you have to wait until somebody actually thinks about the policy without looking to see which party it came from.:peace
 
Last edited:
While I'm sure this felt emotionally validating for you, if the response to having Bernie's past words and actions defending and cheerleading murderous thugs is to angrily attack swing state voters who are refugees from those regimes....

Well, personally I'd encourage Bernie to do it, because I want to discredit his wing of the Democratic party, but generally I think it rather reinforces the point that neither he nor his supporters seem to have an effective response to this particular vulnerability.

Just the facts, okay?
Of the Cuban diaspora, how many do you suppose have ever been anything but lifelong Republican voters?
The REAL swing voters are their CHILDREN, many of whom have never known life in Cuba.

If you're going to deconstruct Bernie's thoughts on Castro and other communist leaders, at least do it accurately.

"In 1959 [...] everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world and all of the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids healthcare, totally transformed the society."

Link to 1985 video
 
Just the facts, okay?

Ok. It is a fact that Bernie has defended, praised, and been a cheerleader for some brutal, murderous, and racist regimes, because they were leftists, and it is a fact that this is a vulnerability for him. It also appears to be a fact that neither he nor his supporters have an effective response ("yet", perhaps).

Of the Cuban diaspora, how many do you suppose have ever been anything but lifelong Republican voters?

Hm it would be an interesting thing to look up.

Is this the theory where turnout doesn't matter?

The REAL swing voters are their CHILDREN, many of whom have never known life in Cuba.

Quite possibly :shrug:

If you're going to deconstruct Bernie's thoughts on Castro and other communist leaders, at least do it accurately.

I've cited and linked to them, along with his cheerleading the Sandinistas and the Venezuelan regime.
 
Last edited:
Ok. It is a fact that Bernie has defended, praised, and been a cheerleader for some brutal, murderous, and racist regimes, because they were leftists, and it is a fact that this is a vulnerability for him. It also appears to be a fact that neither he nor his supporters have an effective response ("yet", perhaps).



Hm it would be an interesting thing to look up.

Is this the theory where turnout doesn't matter?



Quite possibly :shrug:



I've cited and linked to them, along with his cheerleading the Sandinistas and the Venezuelan regime.

I think it is hilarious that you refer to it as "cheerleading".
It means you're working off of references cited that do not contain what he actually has said.
I gave you him speaking on camera...his words, from his mouth.
 
I think it is hilarious that you refer to it as "cheerleading".
It means you're working off of references cited that do not contain what he actually has said.
I gave you him speaking on camera...his words, from his mouth.

You gave me a single quote about Castro. I cited others, above, and linked to more. :shrug:


.... You don't think it's just the one time he defended Castro that you cited, do you?


Also - doubling down on praise of the Cuban healthcare system, while promising to radically overhaul ours, seems... Like not a terribly wise political maneuver.
 
Last edited:
You gave me a single quote about Castro. I cited others, above, and linked to more. :shrug:


.... You don't think it's just the one time he defended Castro that you cited, do you?


Also - doubling down on praise of the Cuban healthcare system, while promising to radically overhaul ours, seems... Like not a terribly wise political maneuver.

Only if you're convinced he intends for us to have the Cuban healthcare system.
I don't know what kind of thinking that is, doesn't make much sense.
Did Roosevelt seek to turn the USA into the Soviet Union?

No, I'm sure Bernie has praised the works of a good many socialists on various subjects.
You don't think he overlooked their problems and faults, do you?
Is it or is it not a fact that authoritarianism can infect both sides of the political spectrum, left or right?
Do you view Bernie as an authoritarian?

Meanwhile, it's becoming increasingly obvious someone else really IS determined to turn this country into an authoritarian fascist oligarchy.
 
Only if you're convinced he intends for us to have the Cuban healthcare system.

A single payer system? Whatever would give me the idea he supports socialism?

Regardless, simply tying the two together and having Bernie do it for you is damaging.

You can tie his opinion of what good healthcare looks like to Cuba, make him look like a defender of brutal murderers, and make him look unsympathetic to minorities all in the same ad and using his own words. It hits him where he's vulnerable, it turns his major policy proposal against him (just as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth did to Kerry's Decorated Veteran narrative), it hurts Democratic turnout, and Bernie needs a better answer to it than doubling down.*


* Personally, I hope he doesn't develop one. But if I was hired to do a critical vulnerability assessment of the campaign for the general, that is where I'd be spending some serious effort.


I don't know what kind of thinking that is, doesn't make much sense.
Did Roosevelt seek to turn the USA into the Soviet Union?

FDR didn't have an endstate or a vision, policy wise, as far as I'm aware.

No, I'm sure Bernie has praised the works of a good many socialists on various subjects.

You don't think he overlooked their problems and faults, do you?

I think that he has struggled to mention them without trying to caveat by defending them, and I think that's a habit that will be very hard for a 70+ year old man to break.

Is it or is it not a fact that authoritarianism can infect both sides of the political spectrum, left or right?

Perhaps that's why Reagan spoke of coming to the conclusion that there was no Left or Right, just Up or Down.

Do you view Bernie as an authoritarian?

I think the scope and scale of government he envisions is inherently authoritarian, regardless of whether it is well-intended authoritarianism (which, in many ways, can be the worst kind) or not.

Meanwhile, it's becoming increasingly obvious someone else really IS determined to turn this country into an authoritarian fascist oligarchy.

Yeah, but that guy's doing Netflix specials and refusing to endorse his former VP in the primaries, now ;).
 
Bernie supporters: If Bernie doesn't win the democrat nomination will you vote for the candidate that does?

If this poll were accurate then 26% of Bernie voters would not vote for the democrat and that would ensure a Trump victory.
 
Not at all. Simply trying the two together and having Bernie do it for you is damaging. You can tie his opinion of what good healthcare looks like to Cuba, make him look like a defender of brutal murderers, and make him look unsympathetic to minorities all in the same ad and using his own words. It hits him where he's vulnerable, it turns good major policy proposal against him, and it hurts Democratic turnout, and Bernie needs a better answer to it than doubling down.*



I'm going to assume that you really DO understand the difference between a single payer system and Cuba's system.
Why would we nationalize our healthcare infrastructure and make healthcare workers and doctors government employees?
Why would the government need to build its own hospitals when our system is already built?
Since it is clear that you're aware that Bernie's goal is some kind of M4A system, are Medicare doctors government employees?
When you go to a clinic or hospital that takes Medicare, are those clinics and hospitals owned and operated by the government?

FDR didn't have an endstate or a vision, policy wise, as far as I'm aware.

Whatever that means :lamo

I think the scope and scale of government he envisions is inherently authoritarian, regardless of whether it is well-intended authoritarianism (which, in many ways, can be the worst kind) or not.

Geez whiz CP, you're way too smart to resort to Bircherizing Bernie. I expect better of you.
You're tarnishing any credibility in this debate because the only intelligent response to out and out red-baiting is for me to point out that you're engaging in red-baiting.

So, you think Bernie is a communist who dreams of turning the country into Cuba or the USSR.
Oh well, I guess that explains your view of his vulnerabilities.
 
I'm going to assume that you really DO understand the difference between a single payer system and Cuba's system.

Sorry - I understand how what I'm trying to say can be confusing.

I am not saying that I think a single payer system where providers are nominally private (though basically utilities) is the exact same as one in which they sure straight up Government employees (shudder). I am saying that Bernie, given his defense their healthcare system, can be tied to it, which will in turn drive up negative opinion on his own proposal by apparent close association.



Unrelated hypothetical example of the dynamic:

A. Trump says, in his next administration, he wants to reshape the Executive Branch to make it more efficient.

B. Trump also insists, repeatedly, even angrily, that, while Putin may have some problems, he sure does have an efficient executive branch of government.​

Odds of Democrats not pounding that connection home? Nil.

Odds of that not taking something Trump thought would be positive ("Oh, make government more efficient? Who could be against that!?") and making it creepy and kinda scary sounding to lots of voters? Also very likely nil. Especially given - and, it's important - it can be done using his own voice.



Whatever that means :lamo

It means precisely what I said. The New Deal wasn't a single coherent holistic policy with a destination, it was an expansion of what Hoover had been doing with a bunch of hodgepodge experiments thrown in and a bunch of rhetoric. Hell, FDR decided major monetary policies based on what numbers felt lucky.


Geez whiz CP, you're way too smart to resort to Bircherizing Bernie. I expect better of you.
You're tarnishing any credibility in this debate because the only intelligent response to out and out red-baiting is for me to point out that you're engaging in red-baiting.

Again, the difference between the "McCarthy/Red-Baiting" ad Hominem you are attempting (and, I realize that it's what Bernie has tried, too) and Bernie's situation is that Bernie is actually on record.

Accusing Bernie of having a history of defending, cheerleading, or praising murderous thugs and dictatorships because they were leftist is like accusing Trump of having a history of bankruptcy. It's not a matter of paranoid supposition; it's a matter of historical fact. :shrug:

And it's a record he, his campaign, and his supporters need to figure out a good response to. Because if - as is increasingly plausible/likely - he becomes the nominee, it's clearly not one they are currently able to effectively address.
 
Last edited:
Sorry - I understand how what I'm trying to say can be confusing.

I am not saying that I think a single payer system where providers are nominally private (though basically utilities) is the exact same as one in which they sure straight up Government employees (shudder). I am saying that Bernie, given his defense their healthcare system, can be tied to it, which will in turn drive up negative opinion on his own proposal by apparent close association.



Unrelated hypothetical example of the dynamic:

A. Trump says, in his next administration, he wants to reshape the Executive Branch to make it more efficient.

B. Trump also insists, repeatedly, even angrily, that, while Putin may have some problems, he sure does have an efficient executive branch of government.​

Odds of Democrats not pounding that connection home? Nil.

Odds of that not taking something Trump thought would be positive ("Oh, make government more efficient? Who could be against that!?") and making it creepy and kinda scary sounding to lots of voters? Also very likely nil. Especially given - and, it's important - it can be done using his own voice.





It means precisely what I said. The New Deal wasn't a single coherent holistic policy with a destination, it was an expansion of what Hoover had been doing with a bunch of hodgepodge experiments thrown in and a bunch of rhetoric. Hell, FDR decided major monetary policies based on what numbers felt lucky.




Again, the difference between the "McCarthy/Red-Baiting" ad Hominem you are attempting (and, I realize that it's what Bernie has tried, too) and Bernie's situation is that Bernie is actually on record.

Accusing Bernie of having a history of defending, cheerleading, or praising murderous thugs and dictatorships because they were leftist is like accusing Trump of having a history of bankruptcy. It's not a matter of paranoid supposition; it's a matter of historical fact. :shrug:

And it's a record he, his campaign, and his supporters need to figure out a good response to. Because if - as is increasingly plausible/likely - he becomes the nominee, it's clearly not one they are currently able to effectively address.

Nobody except Donald Trump will be able to address anything with the crowd you're referring to.
Ad hominem??
If you portray Bernie's ideas for healthcare reform in the USA as being Cuban or Soviet, I'm going to call you on it, just as I would call anyone else on it when they do that. As I said, I assume that you understand how Medicare works and that it's nothing like the Cuban healthcare system.

If they're as resistant to facts as you're pretending to be, then the only candidate they would ever vote for would be Trump.
I think it is a waste of time to try to appeal to that part of the voter base.
You probably think that's the majority of the voter base but I disagree.

See my topmost sig line from Paradoxical for the kind of voter I think is susceptible to that kind of nonsense.
 
Nobody except Donald Trump will be able to address anything with the crowd you're referring to.

I'll admit, I'm not certain what this means.

Ad hominem??

Yes. If your response to "Hey, Bernie has this history, and it will be a problem for him in the General" is "Well you're just a Red-Baiting Bircher!", then that is an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't, actually, address the point, it just seeks to delegimize the person making it.

If they're as resistant to facts as you're pretending to be, then the only candidate they would ever vote for would be Trump.

[emoji38] No. If they think complicated things that they don't deal with in detail are actually simple and if they respond to emotional pulls, that makes them Human. :)

I think it is a waste of time to try to appeal to that part of the voter base.
You probably think that's the majority of the voter base but I disagree.

You are correct - I do indeed think that is probably a majority of the voter base. I've seen enough surveys of voters in both sides to feel fairly comfortable in that assessment.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom