Disastrous interview shows exactly why I don't support Bernie Sanders

Yeah. I'm sure it's not a big deal to someone with a Bernie avatar.

In an ideal world, I think Clinton would be president and deal with foreign affairs, and Sanders would be VP and deal with domestic stuff. I don't think Bernie is as well-versed with foreign policy as he needs to be.

Either option is acceptable, but I'd prefer Sanders

But...but... economists.

no, but one would expect a certain level of understanding of a topic if one is going to rally against it over and over and over on the campaign trail.

one of bernie's core messages is stronger regulation of wall street, so a detail question on that should be right in his wheelhouse and he should have a concrete, detailed plan of action.

if someone asked him what was his position on fishing rights off the coast of oregon, one would expect that maybe he hasn't researched the topic thoroughly

it's the same ---- you get from trump when pressed for how exactly does he plan on doing something and he had no real answer

Frankly it doesn't surprise me at all. Blurry standard and his supporters inhabit a dream world of rainbows and unicorns. Kinda ironic, since there's a striking similarity between beanie's campaign and bush w's lead up to Iraq invasion, a vicious cycle of self delusion.

It will be funny if he gets elected and his policies destroy many jobs as is predicted.

I know that his supporters will still blame conservatives and businesses though.

And I can't trust Hilary with foreign affairs after when her emails are leaked!

Wouldn't be so funny if it's your job that got destroyed or your tax being raised.

I dont get it ...

first one, na, my skill sets are too valuable, but my taxes could get raised and I'd be salty.

A Sanders presidency would be a disaster for America. I was already opposed to him since he wants to transform America into a version of Sweden where 50% of your income will be allocated to other people. That's a big no-no in my book. I was leaning toward Trump since he is very good on immigration and immigration especially illegal has been destructive to the middle class. Not to mention the so-called trade deals that transfer jobs and wealth out of the country. Trump has great stances on those. His ineptitude in foreign policy , however, is even more dangerous and reckon his immigration or trade policies won't matter if the world is a nuclear wasteland as a consequence of arming Japan and South Korea with nukes (and who else?). We are already dealing with the dangers of a nuclear Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea. Less nuclear-armed states are what we need, not more. Clinton is not a notch better at all, but at least, she will be consistent with the policies of the Wilson and FDR eras. That is to maintain American exceptionalism as the best guarantor against violent world wars and cynical regional politics.

Its results that matter, not principles. Trump did what got him results. And it sure did a good job of doing just that.

You also say that Trump's behavior gets him results, but you conveniently ignore the fact that his general election numbers are a dumpster fire.

True, right now he fares terribly, as both the establishment republicans and independants are very averse to him.

You say the American people don't want a sellout, but according to polls, the sellout is crushing the crass manchild and has way better favorability numbers. One poll shows Hillary with 3 points of him in Mississipi. That is nuts.

You say that Trump will have this field day, but ignore the fact that there's just as much attack material on Trump.

And you dont think this can change during the general election?

And no, there isnt quite as many ways to attack trump as there is to Hillary.

Foreign Policy: Not only did Donald Trump vote AGAINST the Iraq War. But unlike Hillary, he doesnt have emails concerning policies that might possibly result in genocide. He doesnt support the enemy, and he doesnt support 2 conflicting sides.

Economy: Donald Trump supports universal healthcare. A model that is significantly more effective than the piece of crap Hillary is trying to defend.

Corruption: Hillary is arguably the most corrupt politician in the US. Trump can go on and on about that. Remember how much Trump ripped on the other republicans on this? He will continue to do so.

TPP: Hillary was pretty big on the TPP, she may have changed her mind now, now that supporting it would be inconvenient for her. But that doesnt change the fact that Hillary would gladly screw over the american people to satisfy her donors.

Hillary being "weak": Too soft on immigration issues. Though, if Sanders becomes the nominee, he will probably rip on sanders for this as well.

wasnt it eastablished years ago that trump is an idiot .. I mean seriously, you do believe in everything that happens on tv right? ... so they could just take kermit the frog and let him tell racist jokes and you would all just vote him ?! ... thats basicly whats happening rght now ... ^^

man, Jeff Dunahm comes to mind ... ^^

"Bringing decency" to the white house got us Bush Jr.

Brilliant.

Haha, man, I completely agree.

That being said, this isn't a problem with Bernie, it's a problem with politics in the current era (Bernie is just a part of that problem).

Frankly, it's the primary reason to support Clinton. She's a lukewarm, wishy-washy candidate who turns witht the political winds on a whim. However, she is also unquestionably qualified and at the very least vaguely competent and knowledgeable.

Can that be said about ANY of the other remaining candidates? Every single one on the Republican side has tax proposals that would skyrocket the deficit, but not only do they not say how they'll pay for those tax reductions - they insist they will balance anyway. Even the proposed "white knight" of the convention Paul Ryan has put forth similar budget plans FOR YEARS! And that's just the biggest, most important, most basic governing function there is. Let's not get started on the proposed policy disasters on foreign affairs and head-in-the-sand denial of basic truths like climate change and current economic numbers.

The real issue is that most voters simply don't care about knowledge in their candidates. Bernie represents the Democratic side of that equation which the party has spent a long time attempting to bury. It's re-emergence on the national scale alongside the solid wall of GOP ignorance is disheartening. It doesn't reflect well on the current political era at all.

Try to use punctuation next time. Jesus...

You sayin I'm biased? not biased at all bro.

Trump 2016!

You may be too young to know this but there was this Republican president named George Bush jr. who totally wrecked the economy and conservatives still defended him. And when the next president was elected who you will know, Barack Obama, improved practically every measure of the economy conservatives said he was in fact destroying the country and we were never worse off! Politics is funny that way.

If Bernie isn't a good pick for President, then a person who is sponsored by all the big corporations that have bought their way into tax havens definitely isn't.

Except for ObamaCare, and the Iran deal. The economy hasn't improved. The National Debt has nearly doubled, and racial tensions are at an all-time high and Obama seems completely indifferent. Now lets name one GOOD thing he did. Just one.

Racial tensions are not even close to an all time high. How laughable. Slavery, Jim crow, civil rights movement. Nothing compared to now right? Come on!

Do you have a problem with poor people getting healthcare? I like Obama'a progress on Cuba, I like his allowance of states allowing marijuana legalization without sicking the feds on them, I like the advancement in LGBT rights and gay marriage. I like the lowering in unemployment.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:

The good

• The economy has added nearly 8.4 million jobs — more than six times the number gained under George W. Bush.
• The number of job openings doubled, to a record 5.7 million.
• Nearly 15 million fewer people lack health insurance coverage.
• Corporate profits are at record levels; stock prices have more than doubled.

The bad

• However, median household income was down 3 percent as of 2014, and the official poverty rate was 1.6 percentage points higher.
• The rate of home ownership has dropped to the lowest point in nearly half a century.
• The federal debt owed to the public has more than doubled — up 107 percent.

LOLOLOLOL.

If you can't name a single good thing any given president did or a single bad thing that president did, the problem is probably on your end. Just saying.

Adjust your frame of reference. Look at things a little more objectively.

Blaiming the economic meltdown on one person speaks to a dubious method of thinking.

Thinking the economic improvement was a result of one person is insane at best.

Not what I was doing. I was taking your original comment and showing you the political flip side. It's hard to make your point with a straight face considering what's going on right now with Obama's critics and how they supported Bush.

The unfortunate reality is that Bernie Sanders can't do anything even if he is elected. Do you think the same lobbyists aren't behind the rest of congress? Bernie says yes or no. He's the executive. He doesn't have constitution authority to pass legislation without 2/3rd congressional approval. If you haven't noticed, there aren't alot of congressmen endorsing Bernie Sanders.

The only anti-establishment movement is a revolution. The President isn't the CEO of the Corporate States of America. He can't go in and fire everyone or take the country in new direction. He's bound by a constitution that has been slaughtered to remove democracy from the equation. America is an Oligarchy. The President is a puppet to lobbyists. When elected officials do not control or regulate currency, the currency controls and regulates them.

Alright. Legalizing marijuana would have made the debt thing a little more bearable. Too bad. I would never attempt to defend Bush Jr. by the way.

What's critical is that the President isn't a "job creator" so you correctly said "the economy". The true "job creators" are the middle class with disposable income.

The health insurance statistic isn't necessarily good. By forcing people to purchase insurance, you're obviously going to achieve this. The problem is that people that couldn't afford insurance were already on medicaid. The problem is that premiums almost doubled as did deductibles on most plans. Obamacare is so controversial because it was called "The Affordable Care Act" while it did the exact opposite.

The real issue is the Iran deal. It does nothing to prevent Iran from being nuclear power. In fact, it almost hastens the process. The criticism to this is that now Iran is being non-compliant and we're going to be forced to intervene. Obama has positioned himself to be the "pacifist" in the Middle East and will obviously blame the Republicans if we have to send armed forces over there. That whole hell-hole with Isis and all has set the stage for a 30 year war. The reality is that Obama could have prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, but he didn't and it's not because he's an idiot.

The whole narrative of democrats framing republicans to look worse than they already do is getting old.

Then please enlighten.

Foreign relations is a big part of the presidents job description.

Let's just go with the most basic thing that you listed as a negative despite it being demonstrably positive: The economy has improved.

You have a weird habit on constantly strawmanning and changing the subject.

But what specific policy was it that perpetuated any economic growth? I mean I'm looking at a $19 trillion dollar debt.

Anyone who is a loyal Democrat or loyal Republican, or loyal to any politician at all...I want to know what the hell it is that you're smoking.

You said, "The economy hasn't improved....Now lets name one GOOD thing he did."

You've already listed the economic state as a result of his action(s). Are you renouncing his responsibility for economic conditions?

I was not conceding to whether or not the economy was better or worse. It's worse. Whenever the Fed tries to hike interest rates the stock market loses value.

I actually don't think the President has all that much to do with the economy. The banks are pretty unregulated and now they're just pumping imaginary money into the economy to inflate another bubble. The government doesn't control the currency.

I just don't see how the economy is "better" and in what regard? I mean the banks aren't doing too bad. The stock market always does well when you print more money, but don't touch those interest rates.

Sanders is going down the Ron Paul territory for me. I thought Ron Paul was awesome in regards to foreign policy predictions and his financial views. The more I looked at him I realized while he might has some common sense views on Central banking, he was a crazy person. How am I supposed to listen to domeone that tells me "I'm a Doctor, I know that life begins at conception and abortion should be banned!" Wingnut buffoon.

Sanders seems less like an insane person, but a liberal thinker who falls into the old trope of being altruistic to the point of ignoring most of the world picture on hand. His foreign policy ideas, or lack thereof, are childish. I knew more about the Middle East when I was a Chomsky fanatic in 2009, at age 22 then he does as a 60 something year old in the halls of power!

Still, I would take him over Hilary, a demon, or Trump, The Archdemon.

True, the appeal about Sanders is that he is the least of all evils, of the major party candidates.

If I were to rate my opinions of the candidates it would go like this

Gary Johnson: 6/10

Sanders: 5/10

Jill Stein: 4.5/10

Kasich: 4/10

Trump: 4/10

Ted Cruz: 2/10

Hillary: 1/10

There, helped you out...........

How much of that profit was due to his policies? Burlington is a well-off city by default. What I was pointing at was the fact that Bernie has been earning a 6-digit salary for 3 decades now and his net worth is 500K. How? His family alone takes 150K. His spending is ridiculous. He may have the experience (and that too as a 'chairman' - just that) but he hardly shows any potential.

But perhaps my biggest disagreement with Bernie is his ideals. And as long as I disagree with him on basis of ideals, I don't think anything will convince me to change lobbies.

American politics in general is really getting tiresome

Difficult to say, but the fact remains. He has had leadership experience and his experience has provided with positive results. Likewise, the policies he is pushing for, such as Universal Healthcare or decriminalization of drugs have been pretty successful ideas for the places where they have been implemented.

Trump on the other hand... has had pretty poor results historically, with several business failures, some even being outright scams (Trump University).

Burlington is a well-off city by default.

A bad leader could easily have changed that. Bernie didn't.

What I was pointing at was the fact that Bernie has been earning a 6-digit salary for 3 decades now and his net worth is 500K. How? His family alone takes 150K. His spending is ridiculous. He may have the experience (and that too as a 'chairman' - just that) but he hardly shows any potential.

But perhaps my biggest disagreement with Bernie is his ideals. And as long as I disagree with him on basis of ideals, I don't think anything will convince me to change lobbies.

Like said previously. Bernie Sanders has policies that could change america for the better. Whereas someone like Hillary will be bound by the establishment and most likely continue being little more than an interest in appealing to her stockholders donors. Bernie Sanders has by comparison, been avoiding super PACs and other similiar crap. He also seems far more ambitious... though I would argue he is a bit too ambitious.

While, I wouldnt agree with all of Sanders Ideals. His ideals are far more appealing than the rest of the competition among mainstream politicians. Many of them have proven to work elsewhere. While I cant say I am for his stance on GMO labelling or anti nuclear power stance, I can say I am for his isolationist view on foreign policy. Someone like Hillary or Trump will play right into ISIS's hands. Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action, case in point: E3 2013 where Sony completely won over the public by not imposing restrictions on used games.

@Johnny-n-Roger: I'm not sure I understand your lines of argument... you always seem to accept discrimination as a fact, then list a number of reasons why it should be ignored... It's the argument you were coming up with regarding racial discrimination, and now you essentially said "yeah Hillary being a woman is a disadvantage for her BUT NEVER MIND THAT!"

As for one good thing Obama did, it'd probably be useless to discuss it, since we'd disagree on that is good and bad. Obamacare is good imo because it is at least a start on universal healthcare for the largest economy in the world, which has somehow managed to convince its populace that it's simply impossible to achieve despite... everybody else in the first world having it. He is the first president to openly support gay marriage, and awareness regarding gun violence as a social epidemic as opposed to to just an inevitable side-effect of FREEDOM is higher than ever because of his incessant denouncements.

I'm not loyal in the sense that I'd blindly vote for a candidate of a party just because they're from that party... But when it's a bipartisan system and one of said parties is rotten to the core, it's kinda hard not to consistently favour the other.

His policies are identifiably socialist, and so it can be said that every plan formed from that basis resulting in a profit can be attributed to the policies that he implemented as mayor of Burlington. Another comment that I would like to say is that claiming any city is wealthy "by default" is a severe oversimplification of the struggles of thousands of families over generations at best. Moving forward, his personal net worth is an aspect of his background that supports his socialist views as a great amount of wealth would contradict that in favor of the extremely wealthy who those supporting his campaign oppose. Furthermore, having over one thousand delegates, and winning the previous six out of seven states in comparison to Secretary Clinton is quite promising.

I am not certain that you are aware of what his ideals are as you were unaware of his education background as a disqualification of your claim that he is unintelligent.

So you prefer Hillary's foreign policy? Voted for iraq war, oversaw Benghazi, Libya, and had large impact in Syrian and Iran policy. She's clueless in practice. cant believe you'd vote for someone with that much incompetence. She's also incredibly dishonest and tries to pander to gather votes. She takes more money for big business than most republicans. How is she supposed to lead the left when she's in bed with so many of these companies. Of course whenever she does get called on a policy - like her support of her husband's policies in the 90's - she just backpedals.

Bernie may not have all the answers, but at least he's on the right path for the left.

@Johnny-n-Roger: How can you reasonably say that the economy is worse now? Job growth is better, wage growth is better, GDP is better, corporate profits are better, the stock market is better, inflation is better, consumer confidence is better. How you can compare the economic state today, compare it to the freefall at the end of the last administration, and come to the conclusion that the economy is worse NOW is dumbfounding. It's such a drastic contrast that you have to be joking.

Thats how I see it. So I'm voting Democrat in any event, and I'm voting for Hillary when they get to Pennsylvania.

And socialism is exactly what I disagree with. It's on that basis that I called him unintelligent.

Claiming any city is wealthy by default is basically the summation of the struggles of the populace. Cities don't magically become wealthy in order for me to assert otherwise. His personal net worth is down there not because of his socialist policies but his poor spending. He has a car worth $172k. And his family expenditure I already stated above. Trump on the other hand utilized his wealth well. He has created more jobs than Sanders have. Bear it in mind that everything I'm saying about Sanders is in comparison to Trump so don't misconstrue anything as being my absolute statement regarding Sanders.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for "I'm a democrat and I don't know why". Bernie is what the leftists really want, he's just exposing the whole agenda. The problem is that what Bernie wants isn't good. The end game is authoritarianism. The more things your regulate the more things you have to regulate until you regulate people's lives.

The reason why most of the problems with the economy exist is because of government legislation. Deregulated banking, crony capitalism, and tax havens are all the product of bipartisan legislation, not capitalism. You have to deregulate the economy. Making more laws and more government only necessitates more laws and more government. Thinking you can "regulate" a problem out of existence without creating a new one is completely unrealistic.

Shillary? The least of all evils? Do you really not see the 2 giant horns protruding from her forehead?