Sanders’ appearance at Liberty was the boldest example yet of his attempt to appeal to people outside the traditional umbrella of the Democratic party and expand the party’s base — something he called engaging in “civil discourse.” The independent who calls himself a “democratic socialist” has sought to topple Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.
Evo said:You're correct, I read 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.
I respectfully disagree. It is not my view, nor have I suggested, that GMO food causes health problems. What I have said is that the people of our country, as well as people around the world, have the right to make choices in terms of what they eat and have the right to have labels telling them whether or not food is made with GMOs. As you know, GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries and the state legislature in Vermont also passed a bill requiring that. I support that effort.
Sanders said:The major issue in terms of our electoral system is truly campaign finance reform. Right now, we are at a moment in history where the Koch brothers and other billionaires are in the process of buying politicians and elections. We need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. We need to pass disclosure legislation. We need to move toward public funding of elections. We also have got to see an increased federal role in the outrageous gerrymandering that Republican states have created and in voter suppression. These are the main issues that I'll be tackling in the coming months.
I believe that the TPP is a disastrous agreement and I am working as hard as I can to see it defeated. One of the reasons that the middle class of this country is disappearing is because we have lost some 60,000 factories since 2001 and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs. We need trade agreements that protect and benefit working families, not just the CEOs of large corporations.
last year, I helped write the most comprehensive veterans legislation passed in many years. Trust me, I had to change my position on very important aspects of veterans' health care in order to get it passed. In terms of health care, I am an advocate of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, not because I think it is the end place as to where we should be, but because I was able to get a major provision in it that greatly expanded primary health care -- which is helping many millions of people today. So the bottom line is that you have to stick by your values but when you're in an elected position, especially when you're in a conservative Congress, now and then you're going to have to compromise.
Colorado has led the effort toward legalizing marijuana and I'm going to watch very closely to see the pluses and minuses of what they have done. I will have more to say about this issue within the coming months.
I voted against the USA Patriot Act and voted against reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. Obviously, terrorism is a serious threat to this country and we must do everything that we can to prevent attacks here and around the world. I believe strongly that we can protect our people without undermining our constitutional rights and I worry very very much about the huge attacks on privacy that we have seen in recent years -- both from the government and from the private sector. I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society and this is something I will oppose as vigorously as I can.
At the end of the day, the war against ISIS will only be won when the Muslim countries in the area fully engage and defeat ISIS and other groups that are distorting what Islam is supposed to be about.
mheslep said:WSJ has front page article placing a price tag on Sanders new program proposals - $16 trillion / ten years. Largest part to come from single payer health plan.
Paul Waldman, the author of that blog post and progressive writer for the American Prospect, did ... something.Pythagorean said:...Washington Post did a little verifying and clarifying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/
What exactly he finds wrong there?Pythagorean said:against TPP:
Czcibor said:What exactly he finds wrong there?
Americans made my country to already sign something in this line many years ago. So would he also try to reverse prior deals?Pythagorean said:The TPP has rules in it that essentially allow a corporation to sue a country if they feel it's policies are encroaching on its profits and the court process is handled by a very small set of arbiters that are representatives of the corporations.
This can lead to situations where policies are being set in the interest of international corporations rather than the citizens, and could lead to abuse by corporations (monetary threats over policy changes) at the expense of citizens of the host country.
Czcibor said:Americans made my country to already sign something in this line many years ago. So would he also try to reverse prior deals?
There is ZERO reason to ask for this information if all you want is to label foods for consumers. Also, why push this labeling that panders to conspiracy theories and misinformation? Does he want labels to show rodent fur, and feces and insects, etc...that are all in processed foods? No. Seems to me he is pandering to the frightened masses for votes, IMO.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.
Source?Evo said:I don't trust Sanders. For example, he claims that all he did was ask for GMO labeling on foods.
Because apparently the overwhelming majority of people want GMO labeled http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling# . Sanders' proposal didn't even require GMOs to be labeled, it only allowed states the right to require them be labeled.Evo said:Not true, per his website There is ZERO reason to ask for this information if all you want is to label foods for consumers. Also, why push this labeling that panders to conspiracy theories and misinformation?
Labeling GMO is the norm in many other countries (including all of Europe). I don't think we need to assume malicious intent here.Evo said:Does he want labels to show rodent fur, and feces and insects, etc...that are all in processed foods? No. Seems to me he is pandering to the frightened masses for votes, IMO.
oops, I meant to edit that, it was some members here that suggested that and I pointed out that they were wrong.Infrared said:Source?
The intent here, IMO, is that he's pandering to GMO fear mongerers and the people that buy into this fear. Why not come out in support of the science showing it's safe? You don't have to agree with me. His website leads one to believe that GMO foods are unsafe. We recently had a thread about the safety of GMO foods, yet Sander's website closes his GMO page withInfrared said:I don't think we need to assume malicious intent here.
Does this sound like he's not against GMO? Or even open minded? He doesn't say anything about all of the evidence about the safety, nor does he care to post about what GMO actually is.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.
But didn't you use that as a reason to say that you didn't trust Sanders, arguing that he lied about his stance on labeling GMO?Evo said:oops, I meant to edit that, it was some members here that suggested that and I pointed out that they were wrong.
Evo said:I don't trust Sanders. For example, he claims that all he did was ask for GMO labeling on foods. Not true
Evo said:The intent here, IMO, is that he's pandering to GMO fear mongerers and the people that buy into this fear. Why not come out in support of the science showing it's safe? You don't have to agree with me. His website leads one to believe that GMO foods are unsafe. We recently had a thread about the safety of GMO foods, yet Sander's website closes his GMO page with
I said he was against GMO and they said that he was just asking for labeling, nothing more.Infrared said:But didn't you use that as a reason to say that you didn't trust Sanders, arguing that he lied about his stance on labeling GMO?
Evo said:I said he was against GMO and they said that he was just asking for labeling, nothing more.
It does seem he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. If Sanders updates his website to come out with information showing GMOs are safe, then I'll change my mind. But right now, his website is posting negative information on the safety of GMOs.Infrared said:Does the first sentence contradict his senate page quote? Maybe, but at this point we are nitpicking a bit. I agree that he probably should have been more forthright with the science.
No problem, I actually meant to fix my post, then the dogs wanted out, then I had to deal with dinner, then I couldn't remember what I was doing.Infrared said:Apologies, I misinterpreted.
Astronuc said:Bernie Sanders gaining traction - with GOP voters?
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-dont-be-shocked-if-my-message-160500542.html
Pythagorean said:No idea. I'm not sure Sanders really has a solid foreign policy, I like him for his domestic policy. What was the name of the agreement?
Czcibor said:I perceived Americans as those who popularized such investment protection treaties, so I look a bit puzzled when they are unhappy about them... ;)
How is that Poland was forced into this agreement, i.e. "Americans made my country to already sign ..."?Czcibor said:I've found this treaty:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210528.pdf (EN)
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19940970467 (PL)
...
mheslep said:How is that Poland was forced into this agreement, i.e. "Americans made my country to already sign ..."?
mheslep said:Americans insisted? If they also said, "I want to buy your women, your daughters", would the Poles have been obliged to hand them over?
I don’t have a super PAC. I don’t even have a backpack. I own one pair of underwear. That’s it. Some of these billionaires have three, four pairs.
BiGyElLoWhAt said:Sooo, a little late, but how about them caucus results? For all of those people who (in this thread) said "He can't win", "I wish he had a shot", etc. (paraphrasing) I think this definitely shows that he CAN win, and DOES have a shot, to say the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/iowa-caucus-democratic-precinct-results.html?_r=0
The final tally the state party announced Tuesday — before the latest changes were made — showed a difference of 3.77 state delegate equivalents:
Clinton: 700.59 state delegate equivalents
Sanders: 696.82 state delegate equivalents
I noticed the superdelegates amassed by Clinton. Can superdelegates change their votes?Pythagorean said:Clinton still holds the vast majority of superdelegate pledges
Yes.Astronuc said:I noticed the superdelegates amassed by Clinton. Can superdelegates change their votes?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/clinton-vs-sanders.856631/Evo said:Let's start a fresh thread Clinton vs Sanders.
