And that's from a Democratic think tank! — Wayfarer

Honestly, aside from abortion rights and gun laws... there's little to no difference between the left and right as far as American politics goes... Bernie has been saying so for decades. Both sides have erred on the side of huge corporate interests. Both sides have decimated public protections. As I said ad nauseum... Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom thereof.

Bernie's ability to draw a clean line in the sand will result in increased numbers of support, even from those who currently believe the bullshit being bandied about. National coverage of him speaking on the fly, such as in debates, will change minds and increase his support. As his coverage has increased, so too has his support. That's why Clinton refused to debate.

It's not a quick fix, and he knows it.

It's not like some big, mysterious secret:

https://www.politicalsciencecareer.com/senator.html

https://www.adn.com/politics/2019/08/18/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-united-states-senator-lisa-murkowski/

But, counter question: if, as you say, the work of a politician is so easy and simple, why would we need someone qualified in something totally different to do the job of "a little activism, a little voting"? Or... do you think the Potus is the one single person in the entire U.S. government who has anything to actually do?

First, I wouldn’t say it is simple—there are not too many people who could be a politician—just that it doesn’t require any sort of life experience. I agree with Arthur Miller that a politician is a glorified actor. He needs to be able to speak in front of crowds, to the press, to constituents. He needs to read speeches and engage in the pomp of diplomacy, often on stages and in front of cameras. I don’t think that it is simple, only that it is often a form of fakery. I think Bernie, though, walks the line between genuine and fakery.

I think it depends on the president and what her voters expect of her. One can delegate her duties to an entire army of unelected bureaucrats and advisors or she can attempt to do the work herself.

Bernie would certainly make a MUCH better president than this guy Trump.

But, considering Pinocchio would make a better president than Trump, I guess that is not a rousing endorsement.

OK, we get it - you're not a Bernie guy. For the sake of argument, assume Trump is not reelected: which Democratic candidate would you want to be President? (i.e. which would make you the least unhappy?)

He's been mixed with BLM, The young turks, Alexandra ocasio-cortez and other far left-wing, ridiculous people/organisations. — Judaka

I don't consider any of those ridiculous.

Throwing around the term of "democratic socialism" doesn't really help either. — Judaka

Yeah yeah, that's been said a million times. Anyone who already believes it's a negative will continue believing it, and would label him or anyone else a socialist anyway. So it really doesn't matter. Those who are curious may learn something about a political philosophy that they didn't think existed, as it's been wrapped up in propaganda for decades.

All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? — NOS4A2

Well he's been consistently on the right side of history for 40 years, fighting for working people.

True, it's not as glamorous as inheriting millions of dollars, bankrupting multiple businesses, and becoming a reality TV star. But not everyone can be a very stable genius with the best words.

Very glad to hear it. I agree -- there really doesn't seem to be an alternative. I didn't like Clinton at all, but I voted for her. People who don't like Bernie can at least do that.

Bernie is definitely my choice. I think he means well. I think his election would serve as a good lesson to Americans who have their minds set on socialism and a welfare state.

A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else.
— NOS4A2

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day... — Artemis

Or on reality.

No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history.

There are certain pieces of legislation that have led to the current wealth gap and all of the problems most everyone agrees on.

Guess who fought hard against them at the time, sometimes being the only nay?

That is the kind of person needed. — creativesoul

Damn right.

No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

Such a common statement -- and essentially meaningless. So Scandinavian countries have failed? Of course not. But if you define socialism as policies that fail, then you get your answer in one step. No need to check history -- which you haven't done anyway. Or even the current state of affairs, for that matter.

As a matter of fact, tell the United States socialism has failed -- also a socialist country, just mainly for the rich. Social security, medicare, medicaid, the Post Office, the VA -- all failed socialist programs.

Also, labeling oneself a socialist has nothing to do with being on the right side of history, which Bernie has indeed been. Simplemindedly wiping out what he's done -- like being against the Iraq War, to name one thing -- because he uses the label "Democratic Socialist" is just that, simpleminded. And embarrassing to read.

Is his ideology too extreme? Bernie has a good answer to that which was recently asked at a Town Hall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmlzB7AIWM

HOW DOES BERNIE PAY FOR HIS PROPOSALS?

Common question. Here's the answer, in detail:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial.

I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. It’s true, his policies nowadays are definitely different than his more radical days when he wanted to nationalize everything, but it still reeks of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. — NOS4A2

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. — NOS4A2

This speaks more to the utter insanity of contemporary American conservatives than it does to anything else.

American and European conservatives differ in many respects. They are often more liberal in the classical sense, more Christian, more republican, more individualistic, less beholden to monarchy and the gentry, for example. Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use.

So Bernie Sanders, who wants free public health care and higher education, the forgiveness of student loans, and paying for all of this by taxing wealthy corporations, is going to be mercilessly skewered as communist and 'anti-growth' by the Republicans. It's not true, but one of the sad facts about Trumpworld is that facts don't matter. . — Wayfarer

Do we even sort-of expect Presidents to live up to their campaign promises? I mean, none of them do.

Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years.

And why are you acting like Dems need to win more Republican votes? Those who are NOT anti-Trump at this point cannot be won over. For everyone who claims to be anti-trump and yet strongly imply they won't vote for Bernie, I can only say they must be rather OK with Trump. Around here, (the phil forum) I have not heard any single Bernie supporter say they will not vote for Biden or Bloomberg (despite being seriously opposed to Bloomberg), but there seems to be some strong implication that the moderates will not vote for Bernie.

Experts estimate that Sanders' major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There's a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and 'no one does.

And that's from a Democratic think tank! — Wayfarer

Surely it is clear by now that many "democrat think tanks" are more anti-Bernie than they are anti-Trump (economics is everything - and being american we all know which "economics" is right :roll:). But I still believe these numbers are somewhat accurate. But based on what I said above, you can probably tell that even if I think those numbers are 100% accurate, it doesn't change my vote. Estimates like that assume when people elect Bernie for President that they also elect two thirds of both houses of congress and EVERY state congress. And these people can't just be democrats, they would have to be full on Bernie style believers. Oh, and don't forget we need a few dead supreme court justices (although I suppose if democratic socialists control every congress in the country, then they can just raise the number of supreme court justices).

Bernie Sanders is openly calling for a political revolution. — Wayfarer

I guess so. A revolution unlike any in history. Where people just vote slightly different. If we look at European countries that Bernie would count as models, are they so different as to require a revolution to get there?

If Ralph Nader hadn't run against Gore, America wouldn't have had W. — Wayfarer

Huh? When Bernie loses the Dem nomination then runs as an independent, start that line of complaint. It has no business here as we decide which democrat candidate to run. Currently, I am far more concerned that the moderate dems are going to be the ones to hand the election to Trump.

Compared to most Western Democratic countries Bernie is neither radical nor socialist nor even leftist, he would be a centrist moderate.

Well, that's the problem for me, Sanders will be a difficult sell for anyone who isn't at least left-leaning if not an outright radical provided he continues to play ball with people and groups that are literal memes outside those circles.

"a little"... Yes, a total mischaracterisation. Proof to me that the work a senator does is very little work and in particular in Sanders' case as apparently you have intimate knowledge of it.

It's again a mischaracterisation. Bismarck was being pragmatic. He implemented single payer health care to appease the working class and lower the influence of the social democratic party of Germany. But it was the socialists that came up with the idea.

Context matters.

I don't doubt it. Most social security across the developed economies was instituted because elites were scared shitless of communist insurrection at the gates. May they forever quake in their fucking boots.

awesome. You've got my vote.

:clap:

A lesson perhaps that if the rich and powerful live in perpetual fear, everyone is better off. Or as social media reminded me the other day, we ought to remind elites the unions were the alternative to dragging bosses out in the streets and beating them to death, and they should probably leave that stuff alone for their own good.

Do we even sort-of expect Presidents to live up to their campaign promises? I mean, none of them do. — ZhouBoTong

That’s the kind of cynicism that everyone else here is showing. Ironic, considering how Sanders is running for the Idealist Party.

Currently, I am far more concerned that the moderate dems are going to be the ones to hand the election to Trump. — ZhouBoTong

Right, because they can’t vote for Sanders.

Like I said, I would *love* to see Sanders win. I would gladly eat my words or parade around the city with a sandwich board saying WRONG ABOUT SANDERS. So, get in touch later. ;-)

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. — NOS4A2

Common, yes. Correct? Sure -- but only using your definition of socialism.

I'll be less nuanced: your claim that socialism has "always failed" is flat wrong, on any measure. Either acknowledge that or the only response you deserve is: "OK, boomer."

But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

To argue Bismark was socialist or not is completely irrelevant, considering you haven't provided a definition of "socialism" and have, in fact, made sweeping, ridiculous claims about it -- which already reveals your indoctrination and poor sense of history.

Speaking of poor sense of history: the "Post Office" was not created by Charles 1st. If you're referring to England's Royal Mail, which is far different in every aspect to the USPS, then you mean Henry VIII. Also, it wasn't "tax-funded" under Charles 1st. Far from it.

I know it's usually pretty easy to get away with ignorant statements in your own circle, but try to be more careful in this forum, OK?

I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. — NOS4A2

Yes, you and millions of others. That's why it's worth putting in the effort to educate yourself about it, which you refuse to do.