Bernie's vision would result in half the workforce effectively employed by the government

[Half-Life]

So, regardless of whether or not you like what Sanders is saying, how do you expect him to accomplish any of his goals? That is one of the biggest problems that I see. Sanders may be well meaning, but I personally see him as being as more unrealistic then any other candidate who thinks he or she can change things. Change is very difficult. Change takes lots of time. Most people are far more moderate than Sanders. Congress is far more moderate than Sanders. How do you get enough of those moderates and conservatives in the Congress to back any of the platform that Sanders supports?

That's the question that's never been answered.

Sanders has answered that question. He's said that the American people will march with him outside of Senator's offices in the various towns across the U.S.A. He's said, "I can't do anything alone. I need the people to protest and fight with me."

Problem is, leftists won't do this. A lot of them only care about themselves while virtue signaling for the poor. If it's going to take work and effort, they won't do anything. They just think Sanders will step in and do it all himself.

Leftists claim they want to help the poor but ask them, "How many soup kitchens did you volunteer at today? How much of your hard-earned money have you handed out to homeless people in your town on a nightly basis?" The answer is always crickets chirping. They just want money taken from billionaires and given to them. They won't actually put any effort in it to do it, though.

I used to hang out with a big leftist when I was younger. When we would go to 711, there was always homeless people outside asking for a dollar or two. My friend at the time was big on "help the poor! help the poor!" and every time we walked in and a homeless guy asked him for a dollar or some change, he would say, "No, sorry." Meanwhile, he had a stack of 20's on him.

Anyone wants to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders has answered that question. He's said that the American people will march with him outside of Senator's offices in the various towns across the U.S.A. He's said, "I can't do anything alone. I need the people to protest and fight with me."

Problem is, leftists won't do this. A lot of them only care about themselves while virtue signaling for the poor. If it's going to take work and effort, they won't do anything. They just think Sanders will step in and do it all himself.

You do have a point. There are a lot of Democrats like that. They virtue signal, make sure they have all the right likes on facebook and then don't lift a finger to change anything, or even speak against those to want to try. Bernie says he can get it done but he doesn't sell out to the Republicans and can't get it done etc. Yeah. He can't get it done by himself. But that's the whole point. He needs people to march along with him, and thankfully more and more are.

Where you go wrong is in talking about "leftists" as if we're all the same. Same place a lot of people on the left go wrong in painting all Republicans or all Trump supporters as the same. But it isn't that simple. There ARE people who ARE and who WILL march right along with Bernie and Yang on their issues, including (to the shock of many) quite a few on the right.

 

[Half-Life]

Sanders has answered that question. He's said that the American people will march with him outside of Senator's offices in the various towns across the U.S.A. He's said, "I can't do anything alone. I need the people to protest and fight with me."

Problem is, leftists won't do this. A lot of them only care about themselves while virtue signaling for the poor. If it's going to take work and effort, they won't do anything. They just think Sanders will step in and do it all himself.

You do have a point. There are a lot of Democrats like that. They virtue signal, make sure they have all the right likes on facebook and then don't lift a finger to change anything, or even speak against those to want to try. Bernie says he can get it done but he doesn't sell out to the Republicans and can't get it done etc. Yeah. He can't get it done by himself. But that's the whole point. He needs people to march along with him, and thankfully more and more are.

Where you go wrong is in talking about "leftists" as if we're all the same. Same place a lot of people on the left go wrong in painting all Republicans or all Trump supporters as the same. But it isn't that simple. There ARE people who ARE and who WILL march right along with Bernie and Yang on their issues, including (to the shock of many) quite a few on the right.

What I mean by "leftists will not do it," I mean there won't be enough of them to make a difference. Perhaps a few will show up and march but it won't be anything significant. The idea that Sanders himself will be marching with the people in all these mobs is dumb as well. He's not going to risk his life every day marching in the streets.

The one thing I would be worried about is Bernie's foreign policy. If Bernie wins, Israel will be blown away within a year and the Middle East will become a cesspool run by ISIS due to Bernie's non-interventionist policy.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Louder, for those in the back that ignore me every time I say it:

No candidate will get their legislation passed by Congress unless they have massive popular support willing to withhold their votes and their labor to extract concessions from the completely broken legislative system in our government.

Not Biden, not Warren, not Pete, not Amy.

They will all face the same intransigence and stonewalling that Bernie would face, and would all end up compromising their plans. Yet, while they are all starting the negotiations having already compromised, Bernie is not. When you ask for a piece of bread, you get crumbs. When you ask for a loaf of bread, you might walk away with a few pieces. Only a fool comes to the table with an offer that is handicapped ahead of time.

Bernie has the advantage of a more aggressive starting point and, if his play at being "organizer in chief" is successful, a mobilized and unyielding popular movement to ensure that it doesn't get diluted beyond recognition. Obama could have had this, and it helped get him elected, but then he immediately stocked his cabinet with Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and the worst specimens of neoliberal machine politicians you can imagine, and ignored the coalition of grassroots organizers that helped him win (remember ACORN?). Bernie isn't gonna do that, so we might have a cabinet of people that are actually trustworthy and care about working Americans instead of enriching themselves and their shareholders.

It comes down to this: of the candidates with a shot at the nomination, only Bernie is brave enough to voice the conviction that the United States is a deeply flawed, dysfunctional, and cruel country. The others can see room for improvement here and there, but defer to the tradition of patriotism that basically entails fawning and uncritical acceptance of a nation in the death throes of its imperialist phase heading towards collapse. Now more than ever, we need a President that can at least appreciate the scope of the problem and how important involving the public is to solving it, rather than relying on the failed model of technocratic reform behind closed doors that relegates the public to spectators.

When your opening gambit is a preposterous one, your opponent will scoff and walk away. If you were purchasing a new vehicle, would offering $25k on a $45k sticker price get you a better deal? No. Because the salesman knows what price he is willing to accept before you ever walked in the door. Similarly, every senator and house member knows what the people who put them in office is willing to accept. Do you advantage your position by allowing some maneuvering room? Yes. But you don’t insult your opponent with a ridiculous initial offer when they have no interest in what you’re trying to sell them in the first place. Just as the salesman does not have to sell you that vehicle below his price because his price is based largely on the vehicle’s popularity, the GOP does not have to deal on Medicare for All when they can keep their job with the status quo.

I don’t think the “organizer in chief” can be successful. It’s my opinion people have to be hurting to mobilize to pressure legislators to act. Hurting how much? Not sure. But regular mass shootings, killing small children in school, and background check legislation that sits on McConnell’s desk though 90% of the American people approve of it isn’t enough. So, what is?

 

[PyramidHead]

Louder, for those in the back that ignore me every time I say it:

No candidate will get their legislation passed by Congress unless they have massive popular support willing to withhold their votes and their labor to extract concessions from the completely broken legislative system in our government.

Not Biden, not Warren, not Pete, not Amy.

They will all face the same intransigence and stonewalling that Bernie would face, and would all end up compromising their plans. Yet, while they are all starting the negotiations having already compromised, Bernie is not. When you ask for a piece of bread, you get crumbs. When you ask for a loaf of bread, you might walk away with a few pieces. Only a fool comes to the table with an offer that is handicapped ahead of time.

Bernie has the advantage of a more aggressive starting point and, if his play at being "organizer in chief" is successful, a mobilized and unyielding popular movement to ensure that it doesn't get diluted beyond recognition. Obama could have had this, and it helped get him elected, but then he immediately stocked his cabinet with Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and the worst specimens of neoliberal machine politicians you can imagine, and ignored the coalition of grassroots organizers that helped him win (remember ACORN?). Bernie isn't gonna do that, so we might have a cabinet of people that are actually trustworthy and care about working Americans instead of enriching themselves and their shareholders.

It comes down to this: of the candidates with a shot at the nomination, only Bernie is brave enough to voice the conviction that the United States is a deeply flawed, dysfunctional, and cruel country. The others can see room for improvement here and there, but defer to the tradition of patriotism that basically entails fawning and uncritical acceptance of a nation in the death throes of its imperialist phase heading towards collapse. Now more than ever, we need a President that can at least appreciate the scope of the problem and how important involving the public is to solving it, rather than relying on the failed model of technocratic reform behind closed doors that relegates the public to spectators.

When your opening gambit is a preposterous one, your opponent will scoff and walk away. If you were purchasing a new vehicle, would offering $25k on a $45k sticker price get you a better deal? No. Because the salesman knows what price he is willing to accept before you ever walked in the door. Similarly, every senator and house member knows what the people who put them in office is willing to accept. Do you advantage your position by allowing some maneuvering room? Yes. But you don’t insult your opponent with a ridiculous initial offer when they have no interest in what you’re trying to sell them in the first place. Just as the salesman does not have to sell you that vehicle below his price because his price is based largely on the vehicle’s popularity, the GOP does not have to deal on Medicare for All when they can keep their job with the status quo.

I don’t think the “organizer in chief” can be successful. It’s my opinion people have to be hurting to mobilize to pressure legislators to act. Hurting how much? Not sure. But regular mass shootings, killing small children in school, and background check legislation that sits on McConnell’s desk though 90% of the American people approve of it isn’t enough. So, what is?

Dying because you can't afford insulin

 

[Derec]

Warren looses me when she goes the 'Israel can do no wrong' mode

And Bernie loses me when he goes "Israel can do no right", wants to give money to Hamas, and gets anti-Israel/antisemitic surrogates like Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

 

[Derec]

Some more parts of Bernie's vision:

Sanders Plans to Sign Dozens of Executive Orders Upon Taking Office: ‘We Cannot Accept Delays from Congress’

That pesky separation of powers!

Several of the executive orders would reverse President Trump’s policies on immigration, including an immediate halt of border wall construction, removing a limit on accepting refugees for asylum, and reinstating the Obama-era DACA program.

We need a better physical barrier to deter illegal crossings. We should hire Israelis to do it. They seem to have done a good job with the West Bank wall and the Gaza fence. But a good wall is not sufficient. We need better laws to

Unlimited "refugees"? The refugee resettlement program sounds good in theory, but for the last 20 years it has bascially been an Islamic immigration program - almost all people thus admitted have been from countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. And a number of those Muslim "refugees" have since joined terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Shabab.

Other orders include a ban on the exportation of crude oil to combat climate change,

US is not a net exporter of course, but often exporting oil makes sense. Venezuela (if they ever get their shit together, but first they need to get rid of the bus driver and his Boligarchs) and Canada have very heavy oil, including super-heavy oil sands, and that can be blended with US light sweet crude from fracked shale. Win win. His proposal is just stupid and shows no understanding of the industry.

 

[ZiprHead]

We need a better physical barrier to deter illegal crossings. We should hire Israelis to do it. They seem to have done a good job with the West Bank wall and the Gaza fence.

I agree. We should just shoot people if they approach the fence like the Israelis do.

 

[Derec]

I agree. We should just shoot people if they approach the fence like the Israelis do.

That is necessary in Israel because they tend to be terrorists who are throwing explosive devices at IDF troops and have the express purpose of "taking down the border and ripping [Israelis'] hearts from their chests" (to quote their leader Yahya Sinwar).
Such an approach is not necessary in the case of our southern border. Nevertheless, we need to protect it better from illegal immigration.

 

[Derec]

Not going to pass, thankfully, but still a fracking bad idea!
Sanders introduces bill to ban fracking

 

[marc]

For those asking what Bernie has accomplished. He has actually been very good at getting amendments to bills, earning the title Amendment King

Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes. Here’s a breakdown (bold indicates Republican Congresses):

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how does this impact the Senate? Obama barely dragged ACA across the line, and that took some incredible parliamentary tactics.

Of course, amendments are just one of the ways lawmakers press their agendas. Sanders has had much less luck with passing bills.

During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders introduced 324 bills, three of which became law. This includes a bill in a Republican Congress naming a post office in Vermont and two more while Democrats had control (one naming another Vermont post office and another increasing veterans’ disability compensation). Clinton, for the record, also passed three bills in eight years.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And how does this impact the Senate? Obama barely dragged ACA across the line, and that took some incredible parliamentary tactics.

Obama made the error of tying to compromise with the Republicans instead of appealing to the people to create pressure on them. And he was charismatic enough that he could have. He didn't try. He never even tried for universal single payer. Had he started there you may now have the "public option" as a compromise.

If Bernie can get the populace behind him, the Republicans will have little choice but to enact his policies. And Bernie has shown his dedication that he will keep pushing rather than caving quickly or being bought as so many politicians can be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how does this impact the Senate? Obama barely dragged ACA across the line, and that took some incredible parliamentary tactics.

Obama made the error of tying to compromise with the Republicans instead of appealing to the people to create pressure on them.

The majority (slim) of the US want to remove Trump from office. 75% of the people want witnesses to testify. McConnell doesn't give a fuck what the people think.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don’t have a link on hand, but IIRC, the cost of a job guarantee would be a tenth of the OP figure, or $300B/yr.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, $30 trillion -> $3 trillion a year which is eye popping as that results in 96 million jobs at $31k a year. Make that 48 million if you double for benefits. That is a 1/3 of the work force.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And how does this impact the Senate? Obama barely dragged ACA across the line, and that took some incredible parliamentary tactics.

Obama made the error of tying to compromise with the Republicans instead of appealing to the people to create pressure on them.

The majority (slim) of the US want to remove Trump from office. 75% of the people want witnesses to testify. McConnell doesn't give a fuck what the people think.

McConnell would care if his constituents applied enough pressure on him that he feared losing his seat.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah, $30 trillion -> $3 trillion a year which is eye popping as that results in 96 million jobs at $31k a year. Make that 48 million if you double for benefits. That is a 1/3 of the work force.

This is one point I think I disagree with Sanders on. He is going to guarantee everyone a job? Doing what? Makework do nothing jobs aren't a good idea. Especially if the workers aren't suited for them. And what happens to people who are bad at the job they get? Can they be let go if there is a job guarantee?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The majority (slim) of the US want to remove Trump from office. 75% of the people want witnesses to testify. McConnell doesn't give a fuck what the people think.

McConnell would care if his constituents applied enough pressure on him that he feared losing his seat.

No... they won't apply that pressure. He represents Kentucky. You seriously know nothing about American politics. People in red states have been voting against their interests for decades now. And even now, they are paying $1,000 in Trump tariff taxes with a smile on their face.

 

[marc]

And how does this impact the Senate? Obama barely dragged ACA across the line, and that took some incredible parliamentary tactics.

Obama made the error of tying to compromise with the Republicans instead of appealing to the people to create pressure on them. And he was charismatic enough that he could have. He didn't try. He never even tried for universal single payer. Had he started there you may now have the "public option" as a compromise.

If Bernie can get the populace behind him, the Republicans will have little choice but to enact his policies. And Bernie has shown his dedication that he will keep pushing rather than caving quickly or being bought as so many politicians can be.

I would disagree with this. The Republicans have shown no interest in listening to public pressure except from the fanatical portion of their base. In the case of ACA, it was passed without any republicans at all. Since no republican was going to vote for it the democrats could have put in plenty of changes that the republicans objected too. They could have put in the public option, but they didn't and Obama didn't even try to fight for it. With Sanders he would fight for things like the public option.

I'm under no illusion that Sanders will be able to get republicans to go along with him. But then no democrat will be able to do that, not with McConnell in charge. So why not have someone who will actually fight for the policies we want? And if we can negotiate a deal, why not start negotiations with what we want instead of giving R's half of what they want to begin with, and conceding half of our goals? A lot of people are fed up with democrats, not because the republicans block them, but because they don't seem to be even trying to help.