News Bernie Sanders Running for President

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Running
AI Thread Summary
Bernie Sanders is attracting significant crowds at his rallies, reflecting a strong grassroots support for his candidacy as a self-described democratic socialist. His long tenure as an independent in U.S. politics and consistent political views contribute to his appeal, despite concerns that the "socialist" label may hinder his electability. Many supporters appreciate his honesty and commitment to addressing critical issues, while critics express skepticism about the feasibility of his policies, particularly regarding the minimum wage and foreign relations. The discussion highlights a growing desire for alternatives to mainstream candidates like Hillary Clinton, with some believing Sanders could gain traction in the primaries. Overall, Sanders' campaign is seen as a challenge to the political status quo, resonating with voters seeking change.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt and rude man
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt, RooksAndBooks, rude man and 2 others
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.
 
micromass said:
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?
 
jakers09 said:
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.
 
axmls said:
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.
 
micromass said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt, rude man and micromass
  • #10
[Googling who Bernie Sander is]

micromass said:
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.]
 
  • #11
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/
 
  • #12
JonDE said:
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
 
  • #13
JonDE said:
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.
 
  • #14
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • Like
Likes rude man
  • #16
JonDE said:
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.
 
  • #18
Czcibor said:
[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.
 
  • #19
rude man said:
Many, I think most, of we Americans now believe the Iraq war was based on fraudulent information, IMO.
Sanders opposed the Gulf War, 1991.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
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
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt, billy_joule and rude man
  • #21
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?
 
  • Like
Likes brainpushups and rude man
  • #24
Astronuc said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
mheslep said:
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)

mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #26
brainpushups said:
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.
 
  • #27
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.

mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #30
Evo said:
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/
 
  • #31
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
 
  • #32
brainpushups said:
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...
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #33
Czcibor said:
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."

Czcibor said:
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)
 
  • #34
brainpushups said:
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? ;)
 
  • #35
Czcibor said:
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.

Czcibor said:
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.

Czcibor said:
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...
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #36
brainpushups said:
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.
Not specially, the US were bound to Saudis from somewhere round 1950s.
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.
Kuwait was invaded in August 1990, while this guy was still trying to talk Hussein into reason in January 1991. It's very nice of him that he let his allies being occupied in order to keep high moral ground. Just it looks a bit different, when you are the occupied one, then you'd rather expect immediate military reaction.

I'm observing the same with respect to Ukraine. At this moment when on Polish internet someone says "wygłosić wyrazy głębokiego zaniepokojenia" (translation of English term "express deep concern") it usually is an irony of western European powers, that don't care so much about Ukraine to actually support it and instead prefer to make nice PC speeches.

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...
Interesting idea of making west Europe more involved. In theory I agree, just don't see how to make it work. Thus, if left into our devices, I'd think about my country going nuclear, as the only workable alternative. (also expect a few more countries reaching the same conclusion) Keep in mind that from here the calculation look much different - hybrid war with Russia presents direct threat, while nuclear proliferation is for us a purely hypothetical one. (the only country in region that could seriously poses a threat is already nuke armed, so a few more armed actually shift a balance of terror into a favourable direction)
 
  • #37
  • #39
Evo said:
He's against GMO,

I think, according to forum rules, you need to provide a source. Yes, he wants GMO food labeled, but I am not sure that Bernie is anti-GMO.
 
  • #40
brainpushups said:
I think, according to forum rules, you need to provide a source. Yes, he wants GMO food labeled, but I am not sure that Bernie is anti-GMO.
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Evo said:
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO.

Where? All I see is about the 'right to know' act which is about labeling.
 
  • #42
Here is one part from his website:

WASHINGTON, May 22 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let Vermont and other states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing ingredients that have been genetically modified.

“All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods,” Sanders said. “I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child.”

The Vermont House on May 10 voted 99-42 for legislation calling for labeling food products that contain genetically modified organisms. Opponents raised concerns that the state could be sued by bio-technology or food industries. Sanders’ proposal would make it clear that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced using genetically modified organisms or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

“Vermont and other states must be allowed to label GMO foods,” Sanders said. “My provision would protect states from threatened lawsuits.”

Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Sixty-four countries around the world already require the labeling of genetically modified foods, including all of the European Union, Russia, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, labels must list more than 3,000 ingredients but the Food and Drug Administration has resisted labels for genetically altered foods.

The Sanders Amendment would make it clear that states may require clear labels that let consumers know what they're eating. “Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said.

The medical community has raised serious health concerns about genetically engineered food. The American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association have passed resolutions that support labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients.[\Quote]
 
  • #43
My partially-formed thoughts on GMO labeling: In general, giving the consumer more information to reach a decision is a positive if it doesn't come at the expense of some other entity. One could argue that labeling does come at the expense of the producer but in that case why shouldn't the consumer be free to make a decision based on personal ignorance? If an adult decides against, say, visiting a doctor because they believe in new age medicine, they have clearly made a mistake but should be free to do so. And this is assuming the only reasons for rejecting such food are health-related; some might object on moral grounds (funnily enough, I have a friend who objects to non-GMO food on 'moral' grounds since GMOs are much more efficient). I find it a bit unsettling that the government can decide on our behalf that GMOs are fine for our consumption and so it is okay to force them upon us while it is still a controversial issue (rightfully or not) in the public sphere.

It shouldn't be relevant, but, just to clarify, I have no problems consuming GMOs.

To Evo: I see your passion about this issue, but could you find a softer way to express it than to automatically characterize a proponent of labeling as "an idiot that doesn't understand GMO" (along with the rest of your two posts) because of a single vote? Perhaps why you can see why this might be found hostile.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #44
Astronuc said:
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/

How about http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/ ?

He (Nate Silver) "guessed" most congressional and national elections correctly.
 
  • #45
Evo said:
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.

Where? Please provide sources where he voted against GMO (and not the labeling).
 
  • #46
Evo said:
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.

Oh the irony...

Care to provide a source for this? You need to stop jumping to conclusions on issues you don't even understand. As others have pointed out, Sanders has said that states should be allowed to label GMO foods. He did not "vote against GMO". Let's understand the facts before taking a stance...

*facepalm
 
  • #47
brainpushups said:
Here is one part from his website:
That last part about about the "medical community" raising serious concerns about GMO is about as accurate as saying the space community has serious concerns about visits from UFOs.

I saw some lights that seemed to be in a line and it was almost like an upside-down check mark, and I saw them fly by and thought it was awfully strange," [Astronaut Leroy] Chiao told The Huffington Post

Maybe one of the GMO labeling Senators should start an investigation, because "mothers" have a right to know who might be watching their child from space.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Czcibor
  • #48
brainpushups said:
Here is one part from his website:
You're correct, I read
Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
It appeared to me that this is part of a longer term plan to control or stop production of GMO foods. What else would be the point of gathering this information? But I am breaking my own rules here on speculating. I am sorry.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt, lisab and Greg Bernhardt
  • #49
Evo said:
Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.

May I suggest an alternative explanation? Too high amount of ideology, too low of boring rationalism/pragmatism. Common problem among politicians and unfortunately voters promote that.

I mean such dogmatic anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-GMO is a part of a typical package offer among left wing. He just offered that. (In the same way you may be content hearing a right wing US politician speaking about GMO and nuclear power... just the creationism and gun part would be embarrassing)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes lisab and Evo
  • #50
Bernie Sanders: 'People Are Responding to Our Message'
http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-people-responding-message-161520074.html
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said today he does not know whether new poll numbers putting him within 7 percentage points of Hillary Clinton in Iowa mean her campaign for the Democratic http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/presidential-nomination.htm is in trouble, but his campaign is "doing great."

As president, he would probably be a good check on both of the 'established' or 'establishment' parties.

Bernie Sanders talks with Bill Moyers - October 31, 2014
http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/30/bernie-sanders-big-money-big-media/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Donald Trump Running for President
8
Replies
350
Views
28K
News RIP Walter Mondale, 93, former VP and Senator from Minnesota
Replies
1
Views
994
News Will Joe Scarborough and David Petraeus Run for President in 2012?
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?
2
Replies
61
Views
10K
News President Bush in the White House
Replies
11
Views
2K
News New Hampshire voters worried about U.S. image
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Is Obama too thin to win the presidency?
Replies
29
Views
5K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
2
Replies
82
Views
20K
News Was the White House Involvement in the Sestak Senate Race Legal or Bribery?
Replies
19
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top