On Bernie Sanders

[hyw]

Hello ladies and gentlemen!

This is my first thread in this neighborhood of Smogon; I've always secluded myself to just the Ubers portion of this website, but recently, I have realized upon the fact that there has been some discussion around here about a topic that interests me: politics.

I'm a junior in high school so I haven't been soaked in the reality of being an adult in this day and age in the United States, and since I need to focus on my studies nowadays, I fail to really watch the news at all to understand a lot of what's happening on the political side of things in the society I live in.

Anyway, over the past few months, I have been hearing more and more about a dude named Bernie Sanders who's running for president and there seems to be a stark dichotomy regarding those who talk of him. On one side there are people who praise him like the second coming of Christ and on the other are those who denounce him as a communist; this peaked my curiosity.

From what I understand, he supports a lot of stuff that makes sense to me. My takeaway from the Democratic Debates was that he's really into taxing the richest of the rich more, pulling out of unnecessary wars and cutting on military, and making healthcare and higher education to become more accessible by the masses (along with some other things like raising the minimum wage). I am originally from Tokyo and since I've moved to the New York, I've noticed a lot of differences between the two places socially, and it's funny to see him talking about patching up all the backwards-parts of the United States I've found peculiar to bring it closer to what society is like in Japan one-by-one, at least from my perspective.

But then again, I'm a novice when it comes to a lot of politics-based discussions and exchanges of ideas. So basically, tldr, can you guys help me form an opinion about Bernie Sanders? I'm pretty sure I lean to the left on almost everything but I really don't like Clinton since I fail to trust that she would follow through on her promises, and I like what Rand Paul is saying, too, despite him being a Republican. I also think we should be strict when it comes to border control and I am concerned about how well we screen immigrants from remote areas like Syria. I'm also unsure about how Sanders seemed to be weak on foreign policy during the second debate. But aside from that, like, does Bernie Sanders even have a chance against Clinton in the primaries? How would he do in the general election, is he really electable? Do you guys foresee all of what he's touting to work out well for the country? In comparison to other reasonable candidates, what are some pros and cons he brings to the table as commander in chief?

I'll start the ball rolling with an anecdote: I was recently talking with my gym teacher about the economy and its shape under a Sanders presidency (in contrast with others) and he told me that the guy is bonkers thinking the minimum wage should be raised to $15 because everyone would just react by raising prices and also by firing workers to cut spending, spiking unemployment rates. I couldn't speak intelligently about this since I am shallow informed, but does what he said ring true? Or can someone form a good counterargument?

Thanks!

 

[DM]

No, what he said does not necessarily ring true; mostly, that is a knee-jerk reaction from Conservatives and Republicans to the idea that the poor should be given more money.

The basic idea of the minimum wage is this: a person cannot be paid less than $XXXX, because any less would not give them a living wage. Currently, the national minimum wage has not been raised in years, and it currently sits that anyone making minimum wage is basically impoverished without having a second job. $15 just about doubles it; while this makes a lot of sense for very expensive metro areas like NYC/Chicago/San Francisco, $15 and hour is well above average for someplace like Buffalo, where I live.

The way to look at it is this: If you make $25,000 a year at a minimum wage job, and I make $250,000 a year somewhere else, do I buy 10 times more of things than you do? Do I have 10 TVs in my house? Do I have 10 cars? Do I buy 10 dozen eggs and 10 gallons of milk every week? The answers to these questions are very likely "no". The problem with our economy is that all the money is funneling upward to the upper 1% of the population, but they aren't really the consumers. When nothing is consumed, prices stagnate and jobs are cut. If you double the minimum wage, you all of a sudden put a bunch of money into the hands of the main consumers of this nation, so, yes, prices will concomitantly increase, but people WON'T have to fire employees to cut spending, because the consumers will be able to continue purchasing those products. So, next time you talk to that gym teacher, you can explain all of the above to him very nicely; or, my advice is never to talk to him about it again, because chances are, if you say anything I just said, he will call you a filthy socialist and give you an F.

That being said, Bernie is the best candidate we have right now. All the Republicans are batshit insane, and the early (not to be trusted, of course) polls show both Clinton and Sanders would defeat each of them in an open election. If that TRULY is the case, I believe we are morally obligated to give Sanders the Dem nomination; we know what we'll get with Clinton, which is more of the same establishmentism. Establishmentarianism? Whatever, you get it.

 

[shaian]

I don't live in the US or have a great understanding of the inner-mechanisms of the American political institutions, but from what I've read, Sanders seems to be running on a platform that engages in very large overhauls of established institutions, as well as a various issues which are more socially engrained as opposed to politically. In an ideal world all that's fine, but are there any concerns that it's all talk? Because as far as I'm aware, the US president can't unilaterally make education free / debt free, or just "solve" wealth inequality without largely restructuring economic policies, not even touching upon solving racial, gender, sexuality inequalities. Those are all great goals, but they all seem more like "hopefully the other party won't stop me from doing this", as opposed to "I can do this", especially due to the nature of American politics where party politics appears to override the desire to actually get things done.

 

[Layell]

I'll stick to a few points on the minimum wage:
1. Fact of the matter is most big businesses who hire minimum wage are already keeping things as lean as can be, do you ever see all the cashier stands filled at Target?
2. Do you believe businesses that purposely underpay their staff deserve to stay in business? If their only method of profit is based on pure exploitation then they aren't a very sustainable business to begin with.
3. Hand in hand with the above point there is that the idea of rising the corporate ladder into more well paying jobs isn't always the case, life isn't a linear exp video game. Sometimes opportunities in some areas (especially rural) fail to materialize, thus our minimum wage should cover a persons basic needs and a dependent or two. Those jobs aren't just for highschool students.
4. On prices rising: People like to simplify a minimum wage rising 30% will result in a 30% rise in prices, but it's hardly the case because wages are only a part of the cost of business, and minimum wage going up will only affect the lower bottom rung of wages. For example as a supervisor my wage went up slightly as a result of the minimum wage increase, but that wouldn't effect my manager on salary.
5. Businesses like being where people have money, so places with high wages have a greater amount of cash moving around, that is good, everyone makes more money this way.

 

[Killah]

I don't live in the US or have a great understanding of the inner-mechanisms of the American political institutions, but from what I've read, Sanders seems to be running on a platform that engages in very large overhauls of established institutions, as well as a various issues which are more socially engrained as opposed to politically. In an ideal world all that's fine, but are there any concerns that it's all talk? Because as far as I'm aware, the US president can't unilaterally make education free / debt free, or just "solve" wealth inequality without largely restructuring economic policies, not even touching upon solving racial, gender, sexuality inequalities. Those are all great goals, but they all seem more like "hopefully the other party won't stop me from doing this", as opposed to "I can do this", especially due to the nature of American politics where party politics appears to override the desire to actually get things done.

In short, yes, there are major concerns it's all talk. The Republicans have a majority in both the house and senate, and will largely oppose most of Sanders plans. Even the democrats will likely be against some of the anti-establishment ideas Sanders has, which is why everyone and their mother is backing Hillary for the nomination.

What Sanders truly wants, however, is overhauling of all of US politics, a "grassroots movement" to reinforce the ideas that the government is for the people, that money in politics should not be allowed, that things good for big business and banking are almost always bad for the American people, etc etc etc. For his desired effect, not only would he have to win the presidency, but he'd also have to change the way both parties think about government and how the American public thinks about politics. Regardless of the results of the legislative branches in the election, all of that will not happen in one or two 4-year terms, but Sanders believes that he can start us down that path.

Sanders being nominated over Hillary might be the shot in the arm America desperately needs in order to catch up to the rest of the Western world.

 

[Shrug]

Sanders being nominated over Hillary might be the shot in the arm America desperately needs in order to catch up to the rest of the Western world.

idk if i agree with the implication of america being behind u have here. there's a difference in ideological values between america and other countries (this is true between any two countries) - in the debate between freedom and safety (the central and pretty much only question in government) the u.s tends to prioritize freedom (or a construction of it based on ~individualism~) which isnt good or bad. i agree there's policies that can be enacted which enhance this freedom but i dont feel the value itself in this instance is the problem

 

[Minwu]

Unlike other candidates, Bernie Sanders seems to be actually interested in tackling the poverty of our own citizens at its' root cause. Like other candidates, I can't tell if he really gives a shit about other minorities. He'll want the vote from the poor obviously, but as a presidential candidate in the United States of America you really do not have any reason to sway the illiterate, non-native speaking, homebound, or anyone geographically removed from a voting center.

I find it hard to care about the differences between candidates when none of them will risk not brown-nosing Israel, among other things. Jill Stein is the only person running who I truly like.

 

[mfhoundoom]

Neither candidate stood out in the debates maybe cuz neither one is a great speaker like Obama or Bill, yes Sanders is a socialist but that's a title, because most liberals these days support socialist aspects of government which is hard to argue with when economically everything is getting better. Obviously Hillary recognizes this too but Bernie's focus on the environment and keeping money out of government have gotten my vote so far but Hillary really seems like a promising candidate too so I'll be happy either way. Many claim her to be power hungry and that she'll say anything to get elected but we gotta remember that that describes all politicians, and a woman with those traits emasculates us men. It's crazy but it's hard to imagine something bad going with this election. I mean crazier things have happened than Trump getting elected president but thank chriest the republican candidates are such flaming nutcases

 

[Killah]

idk if i agree with the implication of america being behind u have here. there's a difference in ideological values between america and other countries (this is true between any two countries) - in the debate between freedom and safety (the central and pretty much only question in government) the u.s tends to prioritize freedom (or a construction of it based on ~individualism~) which isnt good or bad. i agree there's policies that can be enacted which enhance this freedom but i dont feel the value itself in this instance is the problem

I meant it in a more broad sense of the term. America will never be like European countries, and it shouldn't attempt to 100% model itself after them. However, there are a LOT of quantifiable ways the U.S. is behind European countries (and even Canada) that need improving. Health care, poverty, education, happiness index, incarceration, violence... all of these things are on Bernie's agenda, among plenty of others. We don't have to fully conform to socialism or something in order to focus on these issues.

Notice how absolutely none of the GOP camp cares about those items I listed. I'm not sure Hillary cares either, except for "women's rights" which could totally be added as a 7th thing America is falling behind on. Bernie might have an even better track record than she does about it.

 

[Celestavian]

How do you "fall behind" on women's rights? There's the abortion debate going on, but besides that, what rights do women lack that men have? No wage gap myth either, please.

 

[Aldaron]

How do you "fall behind" on women's rights? There's the abortion debate going on, but besides that, what rights do women lack that men have? No wage gap myth either, please.

I'm not going to take a hard-line stance here, but a major issue with any oppressed group, whether gender / sexuality / race / religion based, isn't simply the letter of the law "rights" given out.

As DM would be happy to tell you I am sure, there are many facets to laws. The actual writing of the law, the enforcement of the law, the actual realistic practice of the law, and the social perception of the law at the very least.

You didn't actually say anything so I don't want to assume your intentions, but whenever people say "whats rights are x,y, or z lacking they already have basically everything", it's very very often slightly condescending and often dismissive as well. It ignores that laws have many facets to them and generally only focuses on the first I mentioned, not the rest.

Do you really want to know what "rights" women lack compared to men? Look around you bro. Don't just limit it to women either; look at the LGBTQ community; look at minorities. Look basically at anyone who isn't a white male at or above middle class. Yes, women (mostly, though this is also debatable), have "equal rights". How often this is put into practice? You wanted to ignore the wage gap "myth" so look at anything else. Look at minority representation in government; look at the way people treat men vs the way they treat women. Look at the general societal expectations for men vs. women. Look at the blatant and honestly disgusting victim blaming / shaming in numerous rape cases.

This is a bit off topic for this topic and you didn't actually say much so I don't want to make it seem like I'm calling you out or anything, but your statement could be in line with other dismissive statements that are pretty commonplace, so I wanted to address that.

Also this is all assuming your statement was 100% serious. I totally get shitposting or posting for reactions (cause like 25% of my posts tend to have shades of that) so if you did that good job you got me lol.

 

[mfhoundoom]

I disagree killah I think America has been becoming increasingly socialist despite half the country clenching their butthole in fear when they hear that word, and you can't tell me we're that far behind the other imperialist european countries which are experiencing the same things but on a smaller scale. Though it's true we suffer from from an especially loud and uneducated conservative party when a larger percentage of the population votes, they vote liberal so hopefully it's just a matter of time till we get those ones right. I'll give you all the socialist nations of northern Europe which Bernie keeps pointing to as the ideal country but that's a pretty small portion. Also do you have any evidence for Hillary not caring about those issues?

 

[Cipeylpmis]

lol

lots of swedish swedes in this video

 

[Celestavian]

I'm not going to take a hard-line stance here, but a major issue with any oppressed group, whether gender / sexuality / race / religion based, isn't simply the letter of the law "rights" given out.

As DM would be happy to tell you I am sure, there are many facets to laws. The actual writing of the law, the enforcement of the law, the actual realistic practice of the law, and the social perception of the law at the very least.

You didn't actually say anything so I don't want to assume your intentions, but whenever people say "whats rights are x,y, or z lacking they already have basically everything", it's very very often slightly condescending and often dismissive as well. It ignores that laws have many facets to them and generally only focuses on the first I mentioned, not the rest.

Do you really want to know what "rights" women lack compared to men? Look around you bro. Don't just limit it to women either; look at the LGBTQ community; look at minorities. Look basically at anyone who isn't a white male at or above middle class. Yes, women (mostly, though this is also debatable), have "equal rights". How often this is put into practice? You wanted to ignore the wage gap "myth" so look at anything else. Look at minority representation in government; look at the way people treat men vs the way they treat women. Look at the general societal expectations for men vs. women. Look at the blatant and honestly disgusting victim blaming / shaming in numerous rape cases.

This is a bit off topic for this topic and you didn't actually say much so I don't want to make it seem like I'm calling you out or anything, but your statement could be in line with other dismissive statements that are pretty commonplace, so I wanted to address that.

Also this is all assuming your statement was 100% serious. I totally get shitposting or posting for reactions (cause like 25% of my posts tend to have shades of that) so if you did that good job you got me lol.

No, that was a serious post. I certainly understand that there are societal aspects along with the letter of the law, but the problem I have is this: where is the law's place in determining societal interactions? How is the government supposed to control anything besides the letter of the law or amount of enforcement for it? The idea of the government controlling "perception of the law" is somewhat scary, and the actual practice of the law is more or less out of lawmaker's hands and into the hands of those living under the law.

It is up to us as a society to, in essence, not be dicks to each other, and not the law. Laws in the United States have provided the foundations for an equal playing field, but society has not followed up on its part of respecting that. How is the government supposed to control the things you mentioned? What should it do about how people treat men vs how women or treated, or gender roles? What can it do about minority representation in government when the vast majority of positions are elected positions? The most it can do is have a leader, like Sanders for instance, that can encourage equal treatment for all people in society, but at the end of the day, it's on us to treat people well. The solution is not to do something such as institute diversity quotas or enforce equality of outcome, which are two ways I could see of fixing some of the problems you outlined.

I don't exactly know if I'm understanding your response correctly, so if I've misinterpreted please let me know.

 

[mfhoundoom]

You're trying to tell me that the government which took rights from woman and minorities doesn't have a responsibility to diffuse all the shitty things that they still deal with because now it's become ingrained in our culture? Pardon me for saying if you don't believe hard facts about woman getting payed less for the same work you sir are a raving nutjob. Also I'm pretty sure we have laws because just 'not being dicks to each other' doesn't actually work

 

[Cipeylpmis]

If women get paid less why don't companies hire women only? They would make more shekels. Seems like that would be the most logical solution, as companies are EBIL AND CAPITALISM.

 

[Bass]

All but two of the republican candidates (Lindsey Graham and George Pataki) deny climate science, and of course they have no chance of winning the nomination at this point. Recently I have decided to no longer sugarcoat my stance on this: If I know any acquaintance that would rather vote Republican, I will be sure to chastise them for their irresponsible decision on this issue alone. When I look at the 2008 election, I can at least respect those who voted for McCain. He is certainly a conservative but at least he respected science. With the climate summit in Paris this week, it amazes me that virtually all of the GOP would so smugly claim that they would not even bother attending if they were president. Considering that virtually every other developed country in the world has acknowledged that climate change is an important problem (including Canada and Australia, who were up until recently the only countries that were remotely as backwards we were on this issue with their elected leaders), this to me demonstrates an incredible lack of leadership among the leading GOP candidates.

It pretty much goes without saying I support Bernie Sanders and do plan to vote for him in my state's primary election. That being said, I do worry that recent fear over ISIS will make more Americans gravitate towards Hillary, who is much more of a warhawk than Bernie. She's far better than any of the republicans on the environment of course, but to me she's also a rather boring candidate compared to her rivals. Also, she overplays the gender card (see the her infamous "shouting" comment at the debate) which is actually a big turn-off for me. It's not that I don't think sexism is an issue in American society, but rather her attempts at getting votes based on her gender and not on her actual positions on the issues is what bothers me.

 

[PumpedAaron]

Wow Bass that sounds like a really passionate post. I'll admit, considering the family I've been raised in, I will still very likely end up voting Republican, and I don't think you can say much to dissuade me. It'll be my first time voting in my entire life, and I am 25 years old. I have a -lot- of catching up to do in terms of citizenship. I just hope our political enmity doesn't equate to total enmity.

 

[veiva]

I agree with Sanders on most of his policies. He is very much on the right track on progressive social issues, but also the pervasive structural issues throughout this country (like campaign financing, health care, education, the criminal justice system, income stagnation, wealth concentration, etc) and foreign issues (largely the hellish future of anthropocentric climate change that far too many people [voters and elected officials] disregard and even ridicule as a threat). There are little of his stances I disagree with in any large part, especially when framed within the current political climate of this country. Although my political views are admittedly much further to the left in large part, at this point politicians are moderate (most recent Democrats) to far right (too many to name, mostly Republicans), so it's really refreshing to see someone viable who isn't at most center-left.

I will vote for him in the primaries and for president if that opportunity presents itself. However, I fear the majority of his supporters, now or in the future, simply won't do their part afterwards. They'll vote for him in the primaries or national election but refrain from voting in local and state elections. They'll refuse to contact their legislators to voice their concerns. They will sit passively thinking the president has the ability to reign in a stagnant congress at best, or a obstructionist majority at worst. Then nothing will get done, and Sanders will be considered mediocre, or even terrible. For example, how many Sanders supporters here voted in the local elections this November?

 

[Killah]

How do you "fall behind" on women's rights? There's the abortion debate going on, but besides that, what rights do women lack that men have? No wage gap myth either, please.

Half of the political landscape (both in Washington and throughout the country) is on a crusade against Planned Parenthood in the holy name of anti-abortionism. Perhaps to the letter of the law men and women are equal, but to say America is equal to other countries on gender equality is pretty laughable. It might not be the law's place to enforce equality via affirmative action (which is debatable either way) but it should be our politicians who pave the way by not spending so much time and money enforcing their personal beliefs over what's right.

Also do you have any evidence for Hillary not caring about those issues?

I was a bit heavy handed by saying that about Hillary, but she really does make me wonder at times. From her "Dead Broke" comments to her consistently siding with Wall Street, it makes me question whether she'll side with the Middle Class on important matters, and god forbid even give the families at the poverty line a second consideration. She, like all the democrats, is at least in favor of a minimum wage hike. She still sides favorably with some of the other things I mentioned, though has not attempted to make them a focus of her campaign like Bernie has.

Still, with all the waffling she's done in the past 2 years, I don't have many good things to say about Hillary. If anyone actually wants change to the system, they'll certainly be throwing their vote away on her.

Wow Bass that sounds like a really passionate post. I'll admit, considering the family I've been raised in, I will still very likely end up voting Republican, and I don't think you can say much to dissuade me. It'll be my first time voting in my entire life, and I am 25 years old. I have a -lot- of catching up to do in terms of citizenship. I just hope our political enmity doesn't equate to total enmity.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone, but please don't vote one way or another because your family or friends vote that way. One of the largest reasons our generation is so progressive-leaning is that we have near infinite access to information that previous generations lacked. It's up to you to look in to issues yourself and find the candidate that best represents your ideals. If you believe combating climate change is of crucial importance, voting for someone who denies it is just about the worst thing you can do for yourself and the country.

I will vote for him in the primaries and for president if that opportunity presents itself. However, I fear the majority of his supporters, now or in the future, simply won't do their part afterwards. They'll vote for him in the primaries or national election but refrain from voting in local and state elections. They'll refuse to contact their legislators to voice their concerns. They will sit passively thinking the president has the ability to reign in a stagnant congress at best, or a obstructionist majority at worst. Then nothing will get done, and Sanders will be considered mediocre, or even terrible. For example, how many Sanders supporters here voted in the local elections this November?

It is likely that this will happen even if Sanders does get elected. However, the election will represent something greater. Sanders is bringing issues into the limelight that the general populace has forgotten about, or possibly never even cared about. As these issues rise to the top of people's minds, the politicians already in power and those seeking election will have to change their opinions themselves to continue to be the voice of the people (after all, we know they only care about reelection ). How many of Hillary's stances have changed since Bernie has risen to the national spotlight? Imagine that trend, but nationwide. Even if his presidency is stagnated, it will be a successful one.

 

[Bughouse]

"free college" doesn't work. I'm really not gonna even bother discussing it any more than to say that. It is far too expensive.

What CAN however work is loans in the style of Australia. Good article on the matter.
I had a college roommate who was an Australian exchange student. We were both mystified by each other's country's education affordability policies.

 

[skies]

"free college" doesn't work. I'm really not gonna even bother discussing it any more than to say that. It is far too expensive.

What CAN however work is loans in the style of Australia. Good article on the matter.
I had a college roommate who was an Australian exchange student. We were both mystified by each other's country's education affordability policies.

Assuming these statistics are holding true, and I highly doubt it's changed enough to wildly impact the number.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/economy/sanders-taxes-spending/

Give this a read, too.

 

[tehy]

fun fact : college tuition prices have skyrocketed ever since student loans became available

if 'college is free' then that means the government is cutting every college a check. how big is that check? what's to stop colleges from hiring more professors, building ever more extravagant buildings, giving them all big raises

answer is, at best, a giant bureaucracy, who would be mostly incentivized to keep their jobs (i.e. don't make waves), easily bribed, intensely unwieldy, probably not all that knowledgeable ( so they'd also deny a few legitimate expansions on top of letting many unnecessary things go )

that said the Iraq war was deeply stupid

edit:

DM, sort of my feelings, but I plan to go for very cheap

 

[DM]

College is a complete racket. Do not go. I am dead serious. Find a trade, learn it, make bank.

 

[mfhoundoom]

Those issues you say, Shrug, could be possible but seem a lot less important than people getting an education that can't afford it. Should someone drop out I think they would still benefit from the education they did receive. As for Bughouse's argument, impossible? How do you think countries provide free college now? Tehy what do you mean what's to stop that? Obviously by maintaining a budget, what's your point? if anything colleges would become more regulated and money would have less of an impact on acceptance