1) Putting aside whether he could win a
nationwide election and putting aside if he won whether he could pass anything
through a sharply divided Congress, what will Bernie replace what he tears down
with?
What
will replace Wall Street?
What
will happen to the trillions of dollars invested in “corrupt” Wall Street by
retirement funds of union members, teachers, and middle class workers? Will Bernie make reforms to Wall Street or
will his “revolution” tear it down?
2) As part of Bernie’s attempt to link
Hillary with “corrupt” Wall Street, he uses her speaking fees from Goldman
Sachs as an example of her connection to “Wall Street.” The implication is that Hillary has been
bought out by “corrupt” Wall Street.”
Does
Bernie have any – any – evidence that
Hillary did any favors for Goldman Sachs because, after she was out of office, she
was paid an honorarium for giving speeches about her views of what was
happening in the world?
If
he has examples, let’s hear them. If
Bernie has no such evidence that she has ever changed a view or a vote because
of a donation, it is simply a clear smear and he ought to stop it.
3) Every revolution causes upheaval,
chaos, rapid loss, and sometimes widespread death. When (if) Bernie unleashes his revolution,
how will he avoid the most destructive results of his revolution?
4) Bernie is clearly bringing out new
voters who yearn for a different, better world.
But will not Bernie also mobilize even more millions of mid-level working
people to defend what they have? For
instance, though one may hate (the abstraction) “pharmaceutical companies,"
the hundreds of thousands who work for them stand to lose their jobs and homes
if Bernie undermines them. Will they
vote for him? Or workers in the
insurance industry, defense industries, automotive industry, or oil and gas
industry… All of whom depend on Wall
Street. Will they risk their livelihoods
by voting for him?
5) Is Bernie a Democrat, a Socialist, a
Progressive or a Revolutionary? Are they
all the same thing?
I have been following with interest the recent group of candidates for President that have been surfacing in both political parties. It is quite a group of people who vary in age, experience, and overall an appropriate presidential image. I find it embarrassing that Donald Trump as made it this far in the process as his comments and overall demeanor is about as far from presidential as a person can be. I can't image what the rest of the world thinks about us knowing that he has gotten this far.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Bernie goes, I am such a strong Hillary supporter that I can't really bring myself to think of him as a realist candidate. For that matter, when I look at the experience of all the candidates there is really only one who comes to the forefront and that is Hillary. She has my vote!
My problem with each and every candidate (Hillary Clinton and Gov. Kasich a little less so) is the absurdity of their public promises, especially when each of them knows better. In fact, some people would call them to task for outright “lying” and wash their mouths out with soap.
ReplyDeleteEach relies on the media (every format -- primarily TV, Facebook, and the Twitterverse … after all, who reads the newpapers anymore? certainly not the ‘young’ people) to spread the “word" or "memorized phrase" of what they ‘stand for’ in hope that votes in their favor will result. But NO PRESIDENT—of either party— can act unilaterally. As I remember the Constitution, there’s a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch that also have to be convinced. Given our present (and predictable for the future) Legislature … ain’t nothing going to happen, nohow, nowhere, nowhen. Good god, look how Obama has been hamstrung throughout the years of his Presidency. It’s incredible that he has managed to achieve anything.
So — "I’m going to end Wall Street” or “I’m going to end Obamacare” or “I’m going to bomb [whatever]” or “when I’m President I will immediately [whatever] …" all have no meaning except for media purposes.
Shame on each and all of them for assuming that the citizens of the United States of America are so malleable. Because of media-talk and because of the inevitable stalemate that results when realism sets in, one wonders if and when the media will ever again become true recorders of the news instead of opinion-manipulators on an emotional conveyor belt. Instead, citizens grow weary of the talk and pull back from belief in anything, especially in the system itself. Sanders and Trump are both riding high (temporarily) because they appeal to frustrated citizens who still hold out hope for radical change. But “radical" won’t happen and change takes years if not decades.
SO my vote also goes to Hillary Clinton who seems to be the only realist in town, who knows how the process truly works, who has been there in more than one office, who has been there and done that! If she seems ‘dull’ it’s because she knows the democratic process itself is ‘dull’ — rarely does it move quickly in any direction. Oh … and then it would be nice finally to have a woman for President to get that out of the way too.
It's hard, though, when so many of Bernie's ideas make such good sense. It's harder even when good sense may not be the effective way to go. No doubt Bernie will yield ultimately to Hillary, but his voice has been refreshing, for all of the wild promises.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy link URL didn't paste in correctly, so I deleted and reposted my comments with the correct link.
DeletePoint 1 - "replace wall street" Explain where Bernie has suggested anything more than better regulation and taxation. You're creating a straw man in this point.
ReplyDeletePoint 2 - "Does Bernie have any – any – evidence" - There are two ways to respond. The way Bernie has responded is he's saying we have a system problem. Its like talking about police officers individually versus talking about violence among police generally. He points out that we have a broken system that allows for undue influence - and at most he says Hillary isn't rebuking it by rejecting. Meanwhile Bernie is doing just that.
The second way to respond to it is to listen to Elizabeth Warren. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_us_562e4eefe4b0ec0a389519e3)
Bernie's smart enough to know getting into a back and forth on this would be counter productive and it really doesn't make his point any stronger. Unlimited funding - and really any private funding of elections creates impacts that I once thought we all agreed were undesirable. I hope we still feel that way collectively. However, just like support for Universal Healthcare, this may have changed - which is very unfortunate.
Point 3 - "Revolution" - You're creating another straw man here - Bernie has been very clear that he means getting people involved in the political process, by voting and becoming active politically. How does a higher voter turnout and more people showing up to meetings and running for office create "death" "rapid loss".
Point 4 - Where's your data to suggest this is a problem? There's a lot of conjecture around his problems of elect-ability, and yet he outperforms Hillary in head to head match ups. Its a good question, but it must be answered with evidence.
Point 5 - He says he's a democratic socialist, his definition and policies align with the social democratic parties in Europe.
Eliot, I've been a little slow in answering as I have been with everything for the past few weeks. Everything moves at half speed.
ReplyDelete1. It's sad that so many people have "bought in" to the Bernie message without putting thought in to it. We are a capitalist country; Most of us share ownership of businesses through stocks and bonds, whether it be with our 401K or our company/state sponsored retirement fund. Does he imply tearing that down and putting government in control. I believe not, but many of his supporters, especially the young are not differentiating or examining the consequences. They like his energy.
2. The general population and especially those planning the campaigns are not fully realizing or adapting to the way over half of the US population gets their news and information. The real internet is only 25 years old.
a. Pop up headlines on the phone.
b. 24 hour news from a channel with an agenda.
c. No news at all since there are many more choices with sports, reality shows, etc. that are much more interesting.
My point being that any traditional method of informing the voter only works with the traditional voter who likes to read about issues and politics.
3. The coarseness of our culture has moved in to the political interactions between candidates. We can blame Trump, but it was there before he was a candidate and he just jumped on it knowing that it works. Limbaugh and others have been doing it for thirty years, bur for some reason we were able to keep it out of the public discourse with campaign messaging. Along with that fact checking has become a factor only when you're caught. Sad.
I got a little off track so now back to Bernie. A positive is that for a long time we have been asking, "How can we get the young people involved?". He's found a way. I can only hope that that voter who has been quoted as saying "I'm not sure how I'm voting yet, but it will be either for Sanders or Trump." Will the fact that they're voting get them to move to the level where they should have been first, that of looking in depth at the issues their candidate supports? It's going to be an interesting time.