Bernie Sanders Running for President

[Astronuc]

Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds to his rallies and speeches.

What’s behind Bernie Sanders’ enormous rallies
https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/current-events.20/create-thread

He is registered as an independent in Vt.

According to the Wikipedia article on him, Sanders is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history, and is a self-described democratic socialist, . . . . He caucuses with the Senate Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Interesting alternative to Clinton.

 

[micromass]

I'm not American, but I follow the elections intensively. Sanders is the only candidate I really want to see win. But I realize he'll never be elected.

 

[mheslep]

The Nordic states don't have a high degree of socialism, today they are better described as large welfare states. Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea are socialist states where the government has a large degree of control "of the means of production". A welfare state cuts a lot of checks, but it does not run everything.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not American, but I follow the elections intensively. Sanders is the only candidate I really want to see win. But I realize he'll never be elected.

May I ask if you have a strongly favored candidate in many foreign elections, or just in the US?

 

[Evo]

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that listens to scientists when it's "bad economics"...

Please post the sources for all of the claims you've made, this is a requirement here.

 

[Evo]

He's respectable even among those who abhor his political leanings. This is the guy who claims to have never run a negative campaign ad in his years as a senator. He also has stuck by his political views for as long as he's been a politician, and he's always straightforward about what problems need to be fixed and what his plans are to fix them (which is kind of rare among the people running for president).

What policies, what views, what plans? You need to post sources.

The "socialist" label probably destroys his chances of winning what with 40 years of anti-socialist sentiments all throughout the Cold War, so many in the Cold War generations would never vote for him.

Me personally, the jury's still out for whether I woudk agree with his policies or not, since I'm fairly moderate in my political leanings. That said, I do recognize that there are a whole lot of socialists no one talks about when vilifying socialist views (Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., Helen Keller, etc.) so it's not as if his views are completely fringe. They're just, it seems, somewhat unpopular in the US.

I understand he favors the system that Nordic countries have in place (sort of a capitalism/socialism mix). I'd love to hear people's thoughts on these systems who actually live there.

Please post the sources for the statements you've made, this is a requirement here.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton is probably leading Bernie in New Hampshire, and it's not even clear, despite Bernie’s well-attended campaign events, that he has gained all that much ground over the last month.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Clinton-It-s-not-a-dead-heat-in-New-Hampshire

The Bernie Sanders Quiz
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Take-our-quiz./Sanders-first-elected-position

 

[Student100]

I'm not American, but I follow the elections intensively. Sanders is the only candidate I really want to see win. But I realize he'll never be elected.

I think he at least has a shot at winning the primary. People here in the US are sick of dynasties. Mrs. Clinton seems out of touch, dishonest, and carries serious baggage. I wouldn't mind if he were elected at all; as such, I wouldn't vote for Clinton no matter how bad the alternative is.

On the republican side you also have Paul, who is probably the best candidate out of the bunch (not saying a whole lot, the entire field seems weak.) I wouldn't mind if he were elected either. He is more of a traditional capitalist/libertarian, but I dislike his stance on abortion (not because he argues that human life begins at conception, it certainly begins a human developmental track and one could argue based on science that some life begins at conception. Honestly it's more of an ethics question than a scientific one), but because he wants to push for outlawing it (all you need is one more conservative justice really.). People are going to get abortions regardless, why push to make it illegal and drive them to back alley abortionists? I also disagree with his stances on the environment, deregulated corporations can't be trusted to care for the environment more than their bottom line.

Bernie seems honest to me, even if we disagree on some things. I think he would make a fine president, who would at least attempt to change the status quo in Washington- although our government is so entrenched it's probably impossible at this point. Barrack Obama is case in point, I really want to believe he was genuine about change, but just couldn't execute. I doubt he would be like Obama as well in the regard of continuing many of bushes foreign policy decisions like illegal drone strikes..etc.

There really needs to be alternatives like Bernie and Paul to the two major political parties we have.

 

[Student100]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Clinton-It-s-not-a-dead-heat-in-New-Hampshire

The Bernie Sanders Quiz
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Take-our-quiz./Sanders-first-elected-position

The last news source I read had Bernie leading in New-Hampshire beyond the MOE.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...s_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37

 

[Czcibor]

[Googling who Bernie Sander is]

I'm not American, but I follow the elections intensively. Sanders is the only candidate I really want to see win. But I realize he'll never be elected.

After reading that he opposed 1991 war in Iraq, as person who lives in country allied with the US it made me somewhat less welcoming him. Politely speaking.

After reading about him on wiki... Such feeling that he supports so many nice and expensive policies...

[At this moment I'm reading Fukuyama's "Political Order and Political Decay". Fukuyama explains quite a lot concerning governance quality and gives Scandinavian countries top grades, while the USA get's barely passing ones. Which brings a nasty question concerning US ability to implement left wing policies, regardless of any ideological bent.]

 

[JonDE]

I like Bernie, but some of his stances seem a little extreme. I'm for raising the minimum wage, but to $15 an hour? That seems a little much IMO, are there any non-partisan studies on what the effects would be?

Anyways here is a link to his website, specifically the part about minimum wage. If you scroll a few pages to the right he also talks about free trade under the "creating decent paying jobs". I'm not sure if he opposes all free trade, or if its specifically targeting free trade with poorer nations, from the page

Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, the TPP, and other free-trade agreements. These deals kill American jobs by shifting work overseas to nations which fail to provide worker protections and pay extremely low wages.

edit:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/

 

[Czcibor]

I like Bernie, but some of his stances seem a little extreme. I'm for raising the minimum wage, but to $15 an hour? That seems a little much IMO, are there any non-partisan studies on what the effects would be?

Anyways here is a link to his website, specifically the part about minimum wage. If you scroll a few pages to the right he also talks about free trade under the "creating decent paying jobs". I'm not sure if he opposes all free trade, or if its specifically targeting free trade with poorer nations, from the pageedit:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/

There is a kind of paradox because Scandinavian countries support free trade (not mention EU, where on federal level there is a very fierce pressure on opening markets and encouraging competition). I needed a while to understand it, but there is one more issue - those top countries often try to have a very good business climate. Offer nice safety net, but except of that be very careful not to harm business too much.

There is done by Heritage ranking of economic freedom. And socialistic Denmark is a match for the USA...
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

 

[mheslep]

I'm for raising the minimum wage, but to $15 an hour? That seems a little much IMO, are there any non-partisan studies on what the effects would be?

CBO: raise to only $10.10/hour will cost 500K jobs.

 

[JonDE]

CBO: raise to only $10.10/hour will cost 500K jobs.

I've read that previously, and it really doesn't sound like the worst plan in the world. As noted in your link, the net amount of people living below the poverty line would actually decrease by 900k. It also states that it would increase total net income by about $2 billion.

That being said, that report is about a much more modest increase of $2.85 an hour compared to Bernie`s proposal of $7.75. I'd have to imagine that $15 an hour would effect a lot more businesses and much more harshly. I'm not sure that it would even decrease the amount of people living below the poverty line.

 

[brainpushups]

Speaking as a Vermonter:

I'm pretty excited to see the press that Bernie is finally starting to get. He carefully gauged whether he had a chance at a presidential run before announcing formally by traveling around the country and speaking with people about the issues that he addresses in his speeches and on his website and it looks like he made the right choice. I predict that his support will grow significantly once he is able to debate the other candidates.

 

[mheslep]

I've read that previously, and it really doesn't sound like the worst plan in the world. As noted in your link, the net amount of people living below the poverty line would actually decrease by 900k. It also states that it would increase total net income by about $2 billion.

If it killed 500 jobs not 500K I'd call it terrible with the lousy job situation in the U.S., especially among youth starting first jobs.

 

[Astronuc]

Bernie Sanders on Meet the Press
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...-his-campaign--healthcare--biden-506194499603

 

[rude man]

[Googling who Bernie Sander is]
After reading that he opposed 1991 war in Iraq, as person who lives in country allied with the US it made me somewhat less welcoming him. Politely speaking.

After reading about him on wiki... Such feeling that he supports so many nice and expensive policies...

[At this moment I'm reading Fukuyama's "Political Order and Political Decay". Fukuyama explains quite a lot concerning governance quality and gives Scandinavian countries top grades, while the USA get's barely passing ones. Which brings a nasty question concerning US ability to implement left wing policies, regardless of any ideological bent.]

Many, I think most, of we Americans now believe the Iraq war was based on fraudulent information, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Many, I think most, of we Americans now believe the Iraq war was based on fraudulent information, IMO.

Sanders opposed the Gulf War, 1991.

 

[brainpushups]

Sanders opposed the Gulf War, 1991.

Would you argue that the Gulf War was a success?

I think that Bernie's opposition to armed conflict and his continued support for veterans at home seems like it should rank him high on the list of presidential candidates supported by military families.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708.html#.VdIoylNVhHw
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/flashback-republicans-block-va-health-care-funds

 

[Astronuc]

Bernie blasts NYT Mag reporter's hair question
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-blasts-nyt-mag-reporters-hair-question-126934490446.html

In a “condensed and edited” Q&A with New York Times Magazine, published online Monday, writer Ana Marie Cox asked Sanders if it's fair Clinton's hair gets more attention than his:

Cox: Do you think it’s fair that Hillary's hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does?

Sanders: Hillary's hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?

Cox: Yeah.

Sanders: Is that what you’re asking?

Cox: Yeah.

Sanders: O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?

 

[rude man]

Bernie blasts NYT Mag reporter's hair question
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-blasts-nyt-mag-reporters-hair-question-126934490446.html

This from the NY Times? Not Fox or National Enquirer? Holy Cow!

 

[brainpushups]

Link to the full interview:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/magazine/bernie-sanders-has-heard-about-that-hashtag.html?_r=0

Edit: nope; condensed and edited

 

[mheslep]

Bernie blasts NYT Mag reporter's hair question
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-blasts-nyt-mag-reporters-hair-question-126934490446.html

I like Senator Sanders's response to the reporter a great deal.

I'd like it much more if he were not already so far down the rabbit hole. Why expect a serious issues question from the Magazine, which in this month's issue includes a Tyra Banks exclusive and an the details of How to Brush a Gorilla's Teeth? Why pretend the NYT is serious on politics at all after its front page publication of Sen Rubio's wife's driving tickets and the window size in his home? Why, if he is as he purports, a serious candidate for president, and has a serious message to convey, why allow a couple of screaming bigots to take over his podium like it was a World Wrestling match? Why no mention on the FBI's email server seizure of the leading Democratic candidate?

 

[brainpushups]

I'd like it much more if he were not already so far down the rabbit hole. Why expect a serious issues question from the Magazine, which in this month's issue includes a Tyra Banks exclusive and an the details of How to Brush a Gorilla's Teeth?

I think its possible to have 'entertainment' articles a part of the same publication that can also put out 'serious' articles. The NYT is considered by many to be a serious and reputable source of news so I don't think it is unreasonable for Bernie to expect them to ask about serious issues. He frequently makes his distaste of 'corporate media' known (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orate-media-as-he-is-against-hillary-clinton/); the interviewer should have expected such a response from him. I had to laugh at what he said earlier this year:

“Campaigns are not baseball games,” he said. “What did I read in the paper today? Gov. Bush is getting a new campaign manager. You know who cares about that? About eight people in the world. Nobody cares about that.” (source)

Why, if he is as he purports, a serious candidate for president, and has a serious message to convey, why allow a couple of screaming bigots to take over his podium?

I find it funny that people bring this up. What would have been the winning move here? Get into a physical altercation with two young black women? Yeah, that would have gone over well. I think he handled the situation just fine. Out of any candidate I'm willing to bet he has the strongest and longest history of fighting for civil rights.

 

[mheslep]

I find it funny that people bring this up.

I find it exasperating that people ignore/tolerate the incident.

What would have been the winning move here? Get into a physical altercation with two young black women? Yeah, that would have gone over well. I think he handled the situation just fine.

And more exasperating is the idea that step back-and-shut-up was Sanders only possible move, because of the skin color of those causing the disruption. It's more affirmation that shutting down the voices of others is the way to go, that the riots and highway shutdowns of the last couple years were appropriate forms of "speech". Any number of candidates have handled the forceful heckler situation in the past. Al Sharpton in 2004, countering an angry few during a speed with something like, 'I respect you're right to speak on your time, now you need to respect mine', or Reagan's "I paid for this microphone", or more recently the interruption of one of the President's speeches by gay protesters.

Out of any candidate I'm willing to bet he has the strongest and longest history of fighting for civil rights.

Some record of pro civil rights, some record of pandering.

 

[brainpushups]

For the record: my point was not that Bernie's move was the best or only move, but simply that what he did (or didn't do) provided more limited fodder for pundits and opponents than if the situation somehow escalated.

It's more affirmation that shutting down the voices of others is the way to go, that the riots and highway shutdowns of the last couple years were appropriate forms of "speech".

I think that's a bit of a stretch to say that Bernie was somehow affirming riots as a form a speech by leaving the stage.

 

[Astronuc]

Poll: Support for Sanders climbs as Clinton takes a dip
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/poll-support-for-sanders-climbs-as-clinton-takes-127089053536.html

I think the statistics (polls) are based on too small a population.

 

[Evo]

Poll: Support for Sanders climbs as Clinton takes a dip
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/poll-support-for-sanders-climbs-as-clinton-takes-127089053536.html

I think the statistics (polls) are based on too small a population.

Yeah, I usually go with PEW polls, they seem to be a fair sampling from what I've seen.

 

[Astronuc]

Yeah, I usually go with PEW polls, they seem to be a fair sampling from what I've seen.

Maybe we need to have a thread on 'Reliable Sources or Polls'.

In the NE, I heard about Siena political polls, which were primarily, if not exclusively, NY State, and the Quinnipicac Polls from Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, which seemed to be much broader.

https://www.siena.edu/centers-institutes/siena-research-institute/political-polls/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I really wish he had a chance
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/19/bernie_sanders_let_me_tell_you_something_no_other_candidate_for_president_will_tell_you.html

 

[Czcibor]

Would you argue that the Gulf War was a success?

I think that Bernie's opposition to armed conflict and his continued support for veterans at home seems like it should rank him high on the list of presidential candidates supported by military families.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708.html#.VdIoylNVhHw
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/flashback-republicans-block-va-health-care-funds

From military perspective? Total. From political? Mostly.

I'm not sure whether you see a quite nasty consequence of US effectively dropping its allies. (because electing guy that opposes Gulf War of 1991 would send such signal to all players, even if it is not the intention) I mean the result would be:
a) quite a few countries would be overrun by some rouge states (think about fate of Ukraine or Taiwan)
b) a lot more, would do the only thing to guarantee its independence - build (or buy?) a bundle of nuclear warheads with means of delivery.

If you were going to elect such nice guy, I could only hope my country would belong to the "b" group. Yes, I know its damn expensive, but example of South Africa shows that one don't have to be a world power to start such program. (or if we think about de Gaule's France I doubt that their GDP was actually higher than the one of my country now)

Curious however, whether a few countries conquered and a dozen of medium players starting nuclear weapons programs would make the world a better place...

 

[brainpushups]

From military perspective? Total. From political? Mostly

It would be hard to argue that the Gulf War was a failure from the standpoint of showcasing military might. However, at least according to this author's opinion:

"Carl von Clausewitz famously defined war as "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." Saddam’s subsequent behavior- – his defiance of the United Nations, 1993 attempt to assassinate former President Bush, and his 1994 plan to re-invade Kuwait — makes it clear that the Bush administration failed in this most basic of strategic tasks. In ending the war unilaterally before Saddam had been chastened, the Bush administration condemned the United States to a long-term presence in the Gulf in an effort to contain Iraq. This presence, and the sanctions imposed on Iraq due to Saddam’s recalcitrance, in the end served as a rallying cry for jihadists such as Osama Bin Ladenagainst the United States and its friends in the region."

I'm not sure whether you see a quite nasty consequence of US effectively dropping its allies. (because electing guy that opposes Gulf War of 1991 would send such signal to all players, even if it is not the intention) I mean the result would be:
a) quite a few countries would be overrun by some rouge states (think about fate of Ukraine or Taiwan)
b) a lot more, would do the only thing to guarantee its independence - build (or buy?) a bundle of nuclear warheads with means of delivery.

I doubt his stance on the Gulf War would have such an effect on our relationship with our military allies. Furthermore, Sanders voting record clearly shows that he is not opposed to military action. I don't know enough about his reasons for voting one way or the other on each circumstance, but, at least with his more recent statements his policy, in part, seems to be:
1) Let other countries pull their share of the weight so that the US is less of a world police force (for example, in the Middle East)
2) Don't let money get in the way of supporting veterans health care. (see post 20)

 

[Czcibor]

It would be hard to argue that the Gulf War was a failure from the standpoint of showcasing military might. However, at least according to this author's opinion:

"Carl von Clausewitz famously defined war as "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." Saddam’s subsequent behavior- – his defiance of the United Nations, 1993 attempt to assassinate former President Bush, and his 1994 plan to re-invade Kuwait — makes it clear that the Bush administration failed in this most basic of strategic tasks. In ending the war unilaterally before Saddam had been chastened, the Bush administration condemned the United States to a long-term presence in the Gulf in an effort to contain Iraq. This presence, and the sanctions imposed on Iraq due to Saddam’s recalcitrance, in the end served as a rallying cry for jihadists such as Osama Bin Ladenagainst the United States and its friends in the region."

Honestly, you always can expect greater political objective. Choose whatever war you like, and I'd show you that actually it wasn't won, because... (example: WW2 - half of Europe under communist occupation, allied colonial powers on verge on collapse)

I doubt his stance on the Gulf War would have such an effect on our relationship with our military allies. Furthermore, Sanders voting record clearly shows that he is not opposed to military action. I don't know enough about his reasons for voting one way or the other on each circumstance, but, at least with his more recent statements his policy, in part, seems to be:
1) Let other countries pull their share of the weight so that the US is less of a world police force (for example, in the Middle East)
2) Don't let money get in the way of supporting veterans health care. (see post 20)

If in case of:
-clear casus belli
AND
-relatively easily beatable enemy
he votes against, then his allies should worry, don't you think? They may face less clear casus belli (like Russian hybrid war) and a better armed power, that has a possibility to retaliate.

Concerning pulling their share, may we discuss what you mean on example of my country (Poland)? Buying a few extra tanks or SAMs would indeed increase a bit defensive capabilities of my country but in case of effective deterioration of US guarantees would not mean much. The only thing that would be a game changer and indeed would mostly end our reliance on the US would be a nuclear program. Yes, a bit modernised version of "Force de frappe" and ability to score even in second strike a few dozen hits at least against Moscow and Petersburg. But I don't see here much role of Middle East, my country has no strategic interest there. Except of course that in such case may be interested in buying some nuclear technology, and also Middle East powers like Israel, Iran or Pakistan may serve as sellers.

Needless to say in such a scenario my country would be far from blocking nuclear programs of some third parties. Actually we would be rather more interested in some joint project and cost sharing program.

Are you as surprised as Trump supporters when Mexicans explain that are not going to help him in building that wall? ;)

 

[brainpushups]

Honestly, you always can expect greater political objective. Choose whatever war you like, and I'd show you that actually it wasn't won, because... (example: WW2 - half of Europe under communist occupation, allied colonial powers on verge on collapse)

I don't dispute this, but I think that the author makes a valid point about how the political failure of the Gulf War set up a necessity for US involvement in the region for the decades that followed.

If in case of:
-clear casus belli
AND
-relatively easily beatable enemy
he votes against, then his allies should worry, don't you think? They may face less clear casus belli (like Russian hybrid war) and a better armed power, that has a possibility to retaliate.

I don't think I agree. In his address to the House in 1991 he vied for a more diplomatic approach. I don't think that Sanders would hang an ally out to dry if military action was required. I do think that he would be more likely to attempt to exhaust other avenues of resolution before sending in the tanks than other more hawkish types.

Concerning pulling their share, may we discuss what you mean on example of my country (Poland)? Buying a few extra tanks or SAMs would indeed increase a bit defensive capabilities of my country but in case of effective deterioration of US guarantees would not mean much. The only thing that would be a game changer and indeed would mostly end our reliance on the US would be a nuclear program.

I suppose my opinion is that it seems like the US has frequently played too much of a role in regional conflicts. I'm not suggesting that military aid be cut off, but that other countries in regions where conflict is occurring take up more of a role. In the case of the Middle East the US involvement could be balanced by countries like, say, Saudi Arabia. In Eastern Europe could that role be filled by other European allies? I'm not convinced that nuclear proliferation is the best step toward a more secure political landscape...