Cubey posted:

bernie sanders is the only candidate that would make a good president, however him being elected would result in an even less functional congress so it doesn't even matter. gently caress everything.

Some Hag for The Boston Herald posted:

Will Hillary Clinton be losing sleep over the latest entry in the Democrat presidential primary?

Bernie Sanders, the independent U.S. senator from Vermont, is running for president.

This self-described Democratic socialist is planning on running as a Democrat this year, which is no big surprise. In Washington, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats. In fact, Sen. Harry Reid likes this extreme liberal so much he made Sanders the ranking member on the powerful Senate Budget Committee.

Sanders could make life difficult for the former first lady. The far-left wing of the Democratic party has been shopping for a candidate despite Hillary’s intentions being well known. For months, Moveon.org has been pushing for an Elizabeth Warren candidacy. Once Warren finally squashes the idea or time runs out, these left-wingers will most likely migrate to Sanders over Hillary.

Sanders’ record and extreme positions makes him the liberals’ dream candidate. As a congressman, he stood up to the Bush administration by voting against the 2003 invasion of Iraq — unlike Hillary. He is an unapologetic supporter of single-payer health care, which puts him to the left of both President Obama and Hillary.

His 2016 platform is going to be a continuation of Obama’s Saul Alinsky way of governing. Sanders’ initiatives include offering free tuition to public universities, increasing taxes on the wealthy, stopping the Keystone pipeline and fighting wealth inequality.

Free tuition for college sounds wonderful. How would we pay for that? Do you think professors like Warren are going to forgo their pay of $300,000 to teach one class? I think not.

The problem of taxing the wealthy is the definition of who is rich. As we all know if you tax the super-rich 100 percent, it doesn’t make a dent in funding our bloated federal government. So the definition of wealthy means middle class.

Basically, if Sanders is elected president, people who work and save are in deep trouble.

While his positions are appalling and go against the founding principles of our cherished democracy, Sanders’ candidacy will attract the socialist base of the Democratic party which elected Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Let’s not forget Vermont’s former Gov. Howard Dean, another extreme liberal, was on a good trajectory for winning the Democratic nomination until the scream heard across the USA.

With Sanders saying he’s in it to win it, it appears the road for Hillary to the presidency is going to get a lot more bumpy. There is nothing like a bitter primary to help the GOP. Run, Bernie, run.

ethanol posted:

man i love when a reporter says cool things like 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams' or 'As we all know if you tax the super-rich 100 percent, it doesn’t make a dent in funding our bloated federal government.'

Zeno-25 posted:

MeatwadIsGod posted:

It reminds me of Joe the Plumber - the GOP's everyman - whose income was like $250,000

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate posted:

When Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into the 2016 presidential race, he was widely hailed as a far-left socialist who would appeal to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. A liberal challenge to Hillary Clinton, said Politico. True progressives’ liberal alternative, trumpeted FiveThirtyEight. But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton’s right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

Sanders, an economic populist and middle-class pugilist, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owners—and manufacturers. In 1993, then-Rep. Sanders voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. Sanders is dubious that gun control could help prevent gun violence, telling one interviewer after Sandy Hook that “if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” (He has since endorsed some modest gun control measures.)

Fergus Mac Roich posted:

the news media's overall take on Bernie seems like a more reserved version of what people are saying here. i wonder if the perception of Hillary as the sure fire winner will backfire in any way.

jarofpiss posted:

my discussions irl have gone the direction of if you agree with this dude and would like to see him in the white house, who gives a poo poo about the odds. it's not like these people are presenting some sort of alternative to voting for him in the primary (other than not doing anything at all i guess). it's literally a "there's no chance he wins so what's the point" kind of attitude and i'm focusing on rallying them around there being literally no downside to pulling for him.

if sanders doesn't take the primary and become potus it doesn't make us mistaken for supporting and voting for him so gently caress the cynicism.

spacemang_spliff posted:

I get what your saying but what about someone like me who lives in KS. There is a 0% chance that Sanders will win KS, so voting for him doesn't really matter. Donating so that he can be more competitive in a swing state will have a much much bigger impact than an actual vote. Same for voting in our state caucus. I still vote because of local elections, but in 2012 there was no difference between voting for Obama and voting for Batman.

Fergus Mac Roich posted:

kucinich was in 2008 as well. i think you're right that there's little chance of sanders winning. but while i think it's safe to say that, it's not so easy to pin down what the potential scope of Sanders' impact on the election is.