The discussion centers around Bernie Sanders' candidacy for president, exploring his political views, public reception, and comparisons to other candidates. Participants engage with various aspects of his platform, including socialism, welfare states, and economic policies, as well as the implications of his political identity in the context of U.S. elections.
Participants exhibit a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on Sanders' policies or electability. While some express strong support for his candidacy, others remain doubtful about his chances of winning and the feasibility of his proposals.
Some discussions highlight the complexity of political labels and the historical context of socialism in the U.S., which may affect public perception and acceptance of Sanders' views. Additionally, there are calls for sources to substantiate claims made in the discussion, indicating a desire for rigorous debate.
This discussion may be of interest to individuals following U.S. politics, particularly those interested in the dynamics of political campaigns, the implications of various economic policies, and the historical context of political ideologies.
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