2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy I don't support Bernie Sanders
A Bernie supporter posted a thread asking why Clinton supporters didn't believe Bernie. I responded quite substantively but got no response. Someone then suggested I post this as an OP, so I am doing so.
The great chasm between rhetoric and action
Immigration. On national television he announced he did not vote to protect the Minutemen. He insisted Clinton had pulled one part of a complex bill out of context. The fact is he voted for a designated amendment that did prohibit the Homeland Security from informing the Mexican government about Minutemen activity. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971/text
Roll call vote ( linked to on page with text of amendment) clearly shows his yes vote under independents: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml
His voting record in general on immigration differs dramatically from how he presents himself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/40/immigration#.VueLNJwrLWI
From the time he entered congress, he voted against every immigration reform bill until 2013, when, it appears, he may have been thinking about a run for the presidency.
In general I am suspicious of people who over-promise. I have seen Sanders make a number of promises (from overturning Citizens United, to within his first term making the US no longer have the highest prison population on earth, on and on) that are simply not within the purview of the presidency.
His statements about not "having" or "doing" Super pacs is particularly disingenuous to me. He said in a recent debate, "we decided not to do a Super Pac" and "Hillary Clinton has a Super Pac." Those statements play to the American public's ignorance about campaign finance law. Candidates do not "do" or "have" Super Pacs. They are legally separate entities. Yet Bernie has benefited from more super pac and dark money spending than Clinton, by a large margin. He also has affiliated PACs, which have, along with his campaign, been cited for repeated campaign finance violations. He pretends the issue is about personal virtue, ignoring all the spending done on his behalf, yet his campaign doesn't even follow the already existing and all to meager campaign finance law. He has been cited by the FEC for hundreds of violations, more than any campaign I know about. ( I link to a number of sources in this post that provide evidence for the preceding paragraph. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1258143. And https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/ $23 million is not a minor amount of money).
Another key argument for his campaign is corporate accountability, yet he applies that only to one area of the economy: Wall Street.
He voted to grant immunity to gun corporations. After first denying that vote in an early debate, then saying he would rethink the position, he championed his vote in the debate just prior to Michigan. In addition to being all over the map on the issue, I interpret his last debate statement on the vote as a message to the rural Michigan voters. The NRA tweet the next day expressing support for his position helped in that regard. He played the politics of it masterfully, but I find the position reprehensible, not only because of my views on gun control but because it contradicts his claims to stand as an anti-establishment candidate against corporate excess.
He denounces military spending while voting for pet projects for VT (the f-35). Again, a great difference between rhetoric and behavior.
Then single payer. After disclosing to the press in 2010 that single payer was a nonstarter in the Obamacare debates, he now has built a campaign around attacking Clinton for not embracing a policy he himself said would only have gotten 8 or 9 votes, and that was when the Democrats had a majority in both houses. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
I think he believes what he says about a political revolution, but that doesn't make it any more convincing. Turnout is not up from 2008. There is no indication that Bernie would receive the kind of voter support that would transform congress, as he claimed in his last debate. He has no answer as to how he will work with the existing congress. In other words, he has no plan to implement any of what he promises. I judge him lacking in credibility.
I also find highly disconcerting the fact he hasn't even assembled a foreign policy team and that he thinks it acceptable to pivot away from questions on foreign policy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article65064407.html That position might work for a candidate running to raise issues, but not for someone who seeks to actually be president. I want a president to be informed, engaged, and competent.
Another thing that really bothers me is his failure to take responsibility for his own votes. He blamed Clinton for mass incarceration but accepts no responsibility for his own vote for those laws. He announced it was a disgrace that Gitmo hasn't been closed, yet he himself voted on at least two occasions against closing it. How is it possible not to find that sort of thing questionable?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I think as to immigration he always saw it from the position of the American worker and saw it causing jobs, I dont agree with him necessarily but that is what I think he thought.
Overall I think what matters now is we pay him the respect he is due for a campaign that brought out important issues in a respectful way and be prepared to move on to Hillary and support her the way he will, which will be substantial.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I think you're right about how he viewed it, and I do believe he raised important issues. In that respect, his influence has been good. On some other issues, like guns, it's been less so.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)of stuff on Hillary that bugs the shit out of me too.
I, for one, see politicians for what they are, I know you do too.
For instance I never believed the hope and change thing from Obama, but I did believe he was an extremely smart, fair man who could accomplish a great deal and I was right.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I very much respect that.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)its a product liability issue based on the actions of users, yet I don't see people advocating that the makers of cars be made liable for drunk drivers, or even the manufacturers of alcohol be liable for the same. Even on the issue of modification there are problems, NOS system are illegal in many areas of the country, and can be dangerous, but we don't hold Ford or Chrysler responsible if someone modifies their car with glass packs, NOS systems or even Black Smokers.
This is coming from me, a guy who wouldn't mind if handguns were banned, in fact, who thinks that would be a good thing.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Those issues are adjudicated in a court of law. If a lawsuit is without merit, it's thrown out. Gun makers are held above the law.
You also are repeating the gun lobby's interpretation of that bill that Bernie himself advances. What you don't understand is the extent to which the law has been interpreted by courts to exempt gun makers and sellers from responsibility for a far broader array of activity, including knowingly supplying guns to illegal arms dealers.
His position privileges the profits of gun makers and sellers over the rights of citizens. It is completely inconsistent with claims about corporate accountability. We are expected to believe that profiting from killing people is somehow better than usury. I do not agree.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)On one level, I really don't understand how manufacturers would be held liable for their products use as long as the product itself isn't defective. This is a separate issue from whether the product should be sold to the public at all.
On another level, I do see the special protections that aren't present for other industries, though, from the example lawsuit NPR pulled out, I think that case would have been thrown out, even without the existence of this law.
I do think that perhaps it should be repealed and Sanders made a mistake in voting for it.
kcr
(15,316 posts)Such laws do nothing but protect corporations at the expense of consumers' rights and removes incentive for them to ensure their products are safe. Our legal system is a cornerstone to keeping them in check. For gun manufacturers to have this special protection when few others do is absurd and Sanders is wrong on this issue.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)owned it. It is disingenuous to claim now that he was acting out of concern for immigrants, when it's even on tape (Lou Dobs) why he did it.
IMO, Univision showing that clip, and the video of him praising the Castro regime during the debate, sealed his fate in FL, where Hillary won over 70% of the Latino vote.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)This post goes to the heart of the issues.
Now, they need to put up, or shut up
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)He thought he could do an Obama in 2016 by playing to the left of Hillary and trying to follow Obama's playbook.
Unfortunately, he is no Obama. Obama was an intelligent, dashing, debonair, suave, badass orator who gave people hope and a path forward. Bernie is a dour, cranky, curmudgeonly, loud man with one issue and no path forward. He terribly miscalculated.
Coincidence
(98 posts)Barely squeaking by a dour, cranky, curmudgeonly, loud man with one issue and no path forward doesn't speak highly of Hillary Clinton. Keep building those bridges.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has decimated the lower classes. We need jobs and she is on the wrong side. We need peace and she is on the wrong side. We need to reduce our defense budget and use the money to help those that are suffering. She is on the wrong side. We need to fix our infrastructure. She wants the lower classes to pay. We need to protect our water supplies from fracking pollution. Again she is on the wrong side. We need to stop filling up the private Prisons For Profit. Wrong side. We need to show empathy for those that use medical marijuana for relief from chronic pain. Wrong side. We need to help our children get college educations. She tried but too little ($2,500 tax break), wrong side. We need to stop the banks from "crashing" and stealing trillions of dollars. She is on the side of Goldman-Sachs.
Clinton is not on our side in this class war.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)the presumptive nominee's position on issues? You haven't even bothered to familiarize yourself with her policy positions.
There is no point discussing issues when you have made clear you have no interest in her actual positions.
I know this is futile, but I against provide this link. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
If you actually cared at all about policy, you would engage with her actual positions. Instead, you blatantly misrepresent most of them simply because you dislike her. You've been railing about her long before she announced she was running, and since then you remain entirely unencumbered by any knowledge of her positions. The only one you convey even semi accurately is fracking.
I request you refrain from using the word "our" when speaking to me. You know full well we do not occupy the same social or economic class.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)because I certainly am not. I see daily the ravages of the capitalistic culture that you seem to revere. I have friends and family that have lost homes, jobs and retirements. I work at a foodbank on my time off and see people living in their cars while the 1% reaps billions and hundreds of billions every year. In America 6 babies out of every 1,000 live births die from lack of proper health care. That's worse than all other modern nations and some not so modern. Why? Because we put more emphasis on Goldman-Sachs profits than we do our children. 16 million children live in poverty. Goldman-Sachs doesnt care. Their profits are more important.
This is a class war and the Clintons with their $150,000,000 wealth are not on our (the 1%) side.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)... SHOCKED, I say, that you got no response from the Bernie Bros ...
...not.
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)You call Bernie supporters Bernie Bros and you still expect us to vote for Clinton. You don't get to kick me in the teeth and expect my vote.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts).... is this a consensus opinion?
If so, I'll certainly refrain from using it.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)is not all he appears to be.
Thanks for that thoughtful post!
handmade34
(22,756 posts)(although I do like Bernie and want him to remain my Senator!!)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/message_to_millennials_bernie059844.php
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I had read part of it before. The point the author makes in this particular excerpt was echoed by Paul Krugman.
I share the same concern. I find troubling the extent to which belief has displaced evidence among some Democrats.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Throw a one line snark.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)and the facts
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and provide evidence that substantiates your position.
I provided links to roll call votes and articles with his own quotes that substantiate what I argue.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)/sarcasm
Make a list of Bernie sins and you'll definitely need a sheet of paper.
Make a list of Hillary sins and you'll need a ream of paper.
I'm supporting the lesser of two evils.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)to use it as a campaign ad.
Republicans do this regularly (60+ votes against Obamacare is the most obvious). I have accused them of using their office for political purposes. I also lay that accusation at his feet.
This is an excellent argument. Well done.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)It's a waste of federal resources.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I want to thank the defenders of misogyny
How many more times are you going to invent a reason why you can't support Bernie?
I can't support someone who opposed equal rights for lgbt people:
Who supported a wall to keep out "illegal" immigrants (her words)
http://www.latintimes.com/hillary-clinton-bragging-about-building-border-wall-keeping-out-illegal-immigrants-352631
Who supported sending children back to Central and South America:
"They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns about whether all of them should be sent back,"
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-immigration_n_5507630.html
And the Iraq war:
Who still supports the racist death penalty and who now openly supports more restrictions on abortion:
Unlike Hillary Bernie has always been 100% pro-choice.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)And more become clear all the time. Obviously I'm far from alone in that.
Your assessment of my previously posts is absurdly reductionist, but then I know better than to expect differently.
Democracy. You don't have to like it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)
You got that right, I just named a few.
Your "assessment" of Bernie's immigration record is pure propaganda, but then I've learned to expect nothing more from you.
You post a few facts then completely distort the the truth.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)We could argue back and forth about our chosen candidates for years. I see no point in doing that.
I find no enjoyment in civil war.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)yardwork
(61,607 posts)that the "free college" idea is not well thought through, does not have the support of higher education leaders, and even Bernie has been backtracking on it.
Also, his campaign's inability to connect with black voters is a big concern to me, as was the disgraceful treatment of Dolores Huerta by campaign surrogates (Susan Sarandon, I'm talking to you, you privileged twit).
William769
(55,146 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)for your reasons for supporting Clinton over Sanders and I respect that.
You made you're primary choice and that is fine. I personally, don't disrespect anyone for having a preference for one candidate over another.
That being said, we all know a congressional or senatorial record can be skewed to make almost any point... they voted against or for said bill or amendment, but it had this or that as a rider... or there were caveats that will never make it past that one-line sound byte.
What I do know is that a free post k-12 education is important and beneficial for our democracy and while it might not be feasible in 2017, we should not give up. I'm glad Senator Sanders is giving voice to this.
I also know that universal health care is feasible while not realistic in 2017 IS something we should strive for and not simply give up.
I also know that the Iraq war was a pivotal moment in my lifetime and political identity. I was liberal, but didn't really pay attention to politics until then. I will always prefer the candidate that saw the truth rather than the political opportunity to be hawkish in the face of public fear.
Those are the reasons I prefer Senator Sanders. I will support whomever gains the dem nomination. It's not there yet.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I understand there are reasons why people prefer Bernie. I just don't happen to see the race in the same way. It's nice to hear that you respect my right to voice my opinions and my vote. I think if all of us could demonstrate more of that attitude the primary season would be far less contentious.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)and I agree with most of the post. I also have to add that I believe that he shrank away from single payer when it was up for Vermont instead of leading on it. The cost was much higher than he's been touting, and he knew it would be political suicide to back it.
betsuni
(25,515 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Way back when, Clinton supporters said she and Sanders voted the same 93 percent of the time. "Not much difference," they said. "Nothing worth mentioning."
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Puts me right the fuck to sleep.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and predictably you address none of the points I raise.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)He is not qualified to be CIC. That is why I cannot vote for him.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)enjoy
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)For ages Bernie's website only mentioned his opposition to fracking.
How is it that so few of you bother to inform yourself on Clinton's policy positions? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)the issues that must be face are so much more than fossil fuels
we are done