Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Bernie Sanders is in a David and Goliath battle with a heavily funded and backed candidate named Hillary Clinton. He's made numerous proposals, all of which center around the issues of the middle and lower class, infrastructure improvement, economic management, cutting down on war spending and getting the U.S. out of foreign war matters in general. What is the KYM community's thoughts on this guy and his ideas or other ideas I didn't mention? (-which there are many of.) Thoughtful criticisms, opinions, and remarks on his proposals along with generally relevant information is appreciated.

The new Ron Paul meme.

Pretty much how I feel. I like him but it seems like he's become the left's version of Ron Paul.

Might have a chance if anyone one under 30 votes.

From the very little I know about him, he seems like he might be kind of a political radical, which of course makes me nervous. But I could quite likely be absolutely wrong about that.

This presidential race is a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book, and Bernie is the only good end.

I keep wanting to say this too, but Sanders has actually shown a good amount of support and honestly looks like a much more serious candidate than Paul.

If Hilary wins the democratic party I'm voting independent

Be that as it may, there doesn't change how very disadvantaged his campaign is. Hillary Clinton's campaign, as much of a circus as its been and as much of a disappointing spectacle it is, is still most likely hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of Bernie Sanders. Her campaign can buy more ads, rent more venues, and reach more people.

Bernie Sanders is the candidate who could put the spark and passion back into his political party, the drive to go out and vote for them. But the media has been rooting for a Clinton v Bush election since last year. It's sad to say, but I'm just not sure we're going to get another out-of-nowhere upturn like we saw nearly 8 years ago with Obama's campaign.

Bernie is absolutely perfect every single statement he's said that' I've seen I completely agree with. He's like the dream candidate for the liberal youth of course KYM loves him because that's what most of us are. It's a crying shame I won't be old enough to vote until like the end of 2017 though but if I could I'd throw everything I have at Sanders. It's also a shame that most of the people who would agree with Sanders are too lazy and disillusioned with the system that they just won't vote. Also a shame that Hilary gets bonus points just for being a woman and having a presidential name along with Bush (well not the woman part for him). Also the fact that he has socialist in his party title which will automatically cause people to try to get as far away from him as possible without listening to a word he has to say before-hand, I already see it happening in the comments to his entry and that's on KYM which is supposedly liberal paradise.

But yeah, Bernie is love, Bernie is life.

god bless that most of his supporters aren't old enough to vote, since the general consensus seems to be "I don't know much about him but the internet seems really on board with him lately so I'm down!!!"

These are the issues that mean the most to me, maybe not to you.

• Voted no on the Keystone XL Pipeline
• Voted no on prohibiting the hiring of nonessential federal employees
• Voted no on the bipartisan student loan certainty act
• Voted no to reduce federal gas taxes
• Voted no to secure the southern border
• Voted yes to reduce food stamp funding
• Voted yes to prohibit FDA approval of GMO fish
• Voted yes to authorize moral and religious objection to certain health care items/services (which I don't actually disagree with but some of you might be surprised)
• Voted no on reducing the federal payroll tax (multiple times)

• Supports $10.10+ minimum wage
• Horrible gun rights record
• Wants to drastically reduce defense spending at a time when the border sits wide open and the largest terrorist movement in recent history continues to expand unchecked
• Despite all his talk about making the rich pay their share, voted no to limit subsidies for individuals with income over $750,000 annually (multiple times)
• Absolutely miserable environmental policy

A couple weeks back, Gallup released the results of a survey they conducted using 1,527 adults. They asked: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be _______, would you vote for that person?" Respondents checked yes or no next to various descriptors filling in the blank. Socialist was at rock-bottom with an even 50% saying they would not vote for such a candidate. That's behind Atheist (40%), Muslim (38%), and Evangelical Christian (25%). Food for thought.

@Lisa
By "miserable environmental policy" do you mean his record of protecting the environment?

• Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
• Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.
• Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species.
• Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.
• Sponsored Prohibition of commercial logging on Federal public lands.

Those are just some highlights, his environmental record seems very strong to me.

source

Read the actual details of his bills. One of his proposed regulations on CO2 emissions is so ridiculous that most of our national parks would fail to meet standards. I could go into a whole other thread about how absolutely senseless our current system for classifying which endangered species deserve conservation over the others, but trust that everything he's supported is yet another bandaid on a symptom that fails to address real issues (edit: which is not to say there's a better option, there's not currently a single federal politician out there with a rational view on the environment, conservation, and sustainability/our future on this planet imo).

Nobody should have voted no on speeding up forest thinning approval: "The Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service would have the authorization to remove vegetation that could cause or assist the spread of wildfires, disease or insect infestation. All forest thinning project would come after public meetings had been held. Forest thinning would be restricted to land that is within a 1.5 miles of at-risk communities, high-risk land that serves as a home for threatened and endangered species, high-risk land in the area of municipal water sources and and high-risk land that is specifically susceptible to disease or insect infestation." It's one of the few services we genuinely require of the BLM.

He also wants to "Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs." and is a GMO alarmist.

Seems like the best Democratic candidate to me (which isn't saying much). Some socialistic tendencies, but at least he opposed the bailouts and he's the least likely Dem. to have me arrested for thoughtcrime.

To be honest most of this sounds good, and Bernie has a solid reason in regards to the food stamp one which would sound completely out of character for him to vote down unless he had a reason.

Quote, from Bernie Sanders:

“This was a difficult vote on a bill which has some positive provisions but also some very negative ones.

“This bill will bring greater stability to Vermont dairy farmers by helping them to manage risks and produce products more efficiently. It also is good news that a successful MILC program will stay in place until new insurance provisions for dairy farmers are implemented.

“The bill encourages increased access to healthy, local foods and will build on a growing movement in Vermont which has created agriculture jobs and provided local food for Vermonters. Another provision helps low-income seniors shop at farmers’ markets and roadside stands that are popular across Vermont.

“I am very disappointed that this bill makes $8.6 billion in cuts over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While the final bill steps back from $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had demanded, it is both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy."

I'd have to do a bit of research on some of the lesser stuff he's voted on that sounds questionable, but his reasoning makes sense. Thank you for the supply of information Lisa it is helpful. :3

In case people got confused by that earlier reply I made, basically Bernie Sanders said he greatly disliked reducing food stamp funding but made a compromise in favor of it anyway because it stepped back from the 40 billion dollars the house republicans were wanting to cut from food stamps.

^ in that example he approved nearly $9 billion in food stamp cuts in exchange for… helping low-income seniors visit farmers markets… do we need any further examples that his priorities are whack out of order??

Some of my list is definitely more subjective than others, but the Keystone pipeline and especially GMO alarmism are issues too important to me to compromise. And the minimum wage. That's an awful idea.

It's the philosophy of compromise, you don't get your way completely so that they don't get their way completely. If he said no and their cut-down version didn't pass, then they would have the mindset of trying again with a more extreme proposal since people weren't willing to compromise on the cut-down version. If that happened, they could potentially try passing something even more extreme later on. Compromising now and then builds a foundation for getting things done. That being said, compromising didn't work with Obama.
Regarding the minimum wage, it certainly needs to be raised. People are not able to survive or survive well on the current minimum wage. If a person is willing to work and gets a full-time job, they should not have to worry about whether or not they can make ends meet.

Full speech in Madison, Wisconsin.

I could swear I responded to this but it must have been when I was suspended.

{ It’s the philosophy of compromise, you don’t get your way completely so that they don’t get their way completely. }

9 billion in exchange for elderly field trips to the farmer's market is not a compromise, it's a perfect example of a senile old man being coerced into extremely poor decisions. That IS the extreme version.

{ Regarding the minimum wage, it certainly needs to be raised. }

That's all well and good for Walmart and every other corporation making billions in profit, but what about the mom n pop shops in the middle of small towns now federally required to pay their 16 year old cashier $10.10 an hour? Raising the federal minimum wage would ensure nobody but the fortune 500 monopolies can operate. Our economic issues are not going to be magically solved by throwing even more money at them.

This^. Sadly, only sites like reddit and imgur have taken real notice of his good intentions, and even internet popularity isn’t enough to win you an election. It pains me to say this, but there’s no way he’s gonna win with Hillary in the run.

^ idk man

Sanders fills 10k seat stadium in WI

Check out the pics of Hillary's crowd by comparison.

The anti-Clinton/Bush crowd are fairly serious.

You could probably start a whole other thread about the philosophy of whether or not it's okay to have family-based presidencies. It's closely resemblant of a dynasty the moment you start electing people from the same family. A third Bush from the same family? A second Clinton from the same family? Clinton can be justified a bit because she married into that family but really I do not feel people of the same family name should be allowed to lead the country multiple times. Just because blood is shared, does not mean the person should get to play off that unfair advantage. But if we entertain the idea of it being okay, then why bother having a democracy in the first place when the genetics and titles already run things? It is as if people are choosing candidates based on what brand they are (I like Bush Brand, but Clinton Brand has better flavor).

Honestly it's completely cartoonish none of the media has talked about this glaring issue. It's not that they're bad people, but the basis on which they are running is so biased in favor of genetics or name-brand that you have to wonder when Democracy became a choice of two dynasties.

I.. actually haven't heard a single person say "I want another bush/clinton because the last bush/clinton we have was great."
Everyone has viewed bush and clinton based on who they are, not who their relatives are.

I have not heard that either. It wouldn't be a campaign slogan, it would be something in the back of people's minds. But what are the odds of candidates running that just happen, to be in the same family as previous presidents? And what are the odds of them then being popular with the people? I find it hard to believe it's pure happenstance that they are popular and just happen, to be in the same family. That's just speculation, but it seems like a very obvious thing for the media to just overlook and never mention.

I like Bernie BUT would probably never vote for him--because electing a Jew for President sends the wrong message to over a billion Muslims. Unless Sanders comes out strongly anti-Zionist which I doubt he will, electing any Jew to highest American office only confirms Muslim fears that Zionists control all America's major politics and policies now. We don't need to continue to slap the face of Muslims with our immoral support of Zionists so no, no vote from this anti-Zionist Jew for Bernie.

Let them whine.