Bernie Sanders Is Running For POTUS!.....

[ironbite]

Holy shit that's just sad.

Ironbite-why don't they make up something instead.

[Barbarella]

THIS JUST IN:  Fox News has uncovered a controversy with Bernie Sanders!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/28/five-scandals-for-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-that-would-sink-any-republican/

To summarize, they are slamming Sanders for a quote he made regarding women fantasizing about getting raped.  It was in a column he wrote and shows his views exactly.  That's it folks; shows over.  Time to go home.

Except that's not the entire story:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/31/411014337/bernie-sanders-likens-salacious-1972-essay-to-fifty-shades-of-grey

Or if you'd like Sanders' own words about the essay that he wrote:

"If you read it, it was dealing with gender stereotypes. Why some men like to oppress women. Why other women like to be submissive. You know, something like Fifty Shades of Grey. Very poorly written. Forty-three years ago."

So this essay which Fox News claimed to bash women was actually a satire showing gender stereotypes, which Sanders admits was poorly written.  Oh yeah, did I mention he wrote it over 40 years ago?

Personally I find this to be fantastic news!  First, because it shows the Right officially considers Sanders a threat.  And second, the best they could come up with when digging up dirt was a 40-year old satirical essay.

Now that's great news! It puts Sanders on the map & in the world of "Legit Candidate"......and shows how pitiful FAUX Noise is.

[Vypernight]

I find it funny how the scandals surrounding Clinton (and her husband) involve derogatory views toward rape victims (since when did the GOP ever care about the victims?), ties to a sex slave operation, and an apparent seance. 

Sanders:  Wrote a crappy essay. 

Now compare this to those running on the GOP side . . .

Also, I like how the article remarks about people taking the words of the Left out of context while they follow the GOP word-for-word.  Maybe that's because things people on the Left say Are taken out of context while things the GOP say Are Direct Quotes. 

Do they really want to compare something Sanders wrote (and admitted to) 40 years ago to Cruz boasting about blocking a gun control bill that the majority of the country (including gun owners) support?

[Vypernight]

I will admit to having one concern about Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, the GOP would likely pounce on it.  He's been talking exclusively about the economy, which is great.  But then I saw this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/04/fox-news-poll-bush-walker-carson-top-gop-pack-support-for-clinton-down/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D1076353541

Specifically the quote: 

The priorities of Republican primary voters have changed significantly since last time around.  Forty-six percent say economic issues will be most important in deciding their vote for the GOP nomination.  That’s down 30 percentage points from the 76 percent who said the same in 2011.  And 36 percent now say national security will be their deciding issue -- more than four times the 8 percent that said so four years ago. For 12 percent, social issues will be most important, up from six percent.

Now, I know it's a Fox News site, but I believe they have a point.  The GOP could make national security their main talking point since it still is a major issue (especially with ISIS around).  However, Sanders has barely touched on it, if at all.  He needs to be ready for that, and if it's brought up, he needs to make Americans aware that he is perfectly capable of keeping the country safe.  Granted, he'd probably throw in a, "We need to stop creating enemies," which I'm good with, but he also needs to reveal how he'd deal with any threats that do exist.

[Sigmaleph]

I will admit to having one concern about Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, the GOP would likely pounce on it.  He's been talking exclusively about the economy, which is great.  But then I saw this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/04/fox-news-poll-bush-walker-carson-top-gop-pack-support-for-clinton-down/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D1076353541

Specifically the quote: 

The priorities of Republican primary voters have changed significantly since last time around.  Forty-six percent say economic issues will be most important in deciding their vote for the GOP nomination.  That’s down 30 percentage points from the 76 percent who said the same in 2011.  And 36 percent now say national security will be their deciding issue -- more than four times the 8 percent that said so four years ago. For 12 percent, social issues will be most important, up from six percent.

Now, I know it's a Fox News site, but I believe they have a point.  The GOP could make national security their main talking point since it still is a major issue (especially with ISIS around).  However, Sanders has barely touched on it, if at all.  He needs to be ready for that, and if it's brought up, he needs to make Americans aware that he is perfectly capable of keeping the country safe.  Granted, he'd probably throw in a, "We need to stop creating enemies," which I'm good with, but he also needs to reveal how he'd deal with any threats that do exist.

That giant fucking army with a budget bigger than all the others in the world combined? The people spying on every phonecall (except maybe less now)?

The US does not have a national security problem. Or rather, it has a national security problem the way an alcoholic has a drinking problem. Ideally Sanders would actually help America join a twelve-step program, but at the very least he's not talking about what you should buy at the liquor store.

That metaphor sort of got away from me. Point is, less fearmongering is a good thing.

[RavynousHunter]

I'd hope he'd get us to do something a bit more effective than twelve-stepping.  Maybe get us some of them newfangled drugs we got for treating chemical dependency.

[rookie]

That's an interesting position, Sigma. I've been likening it to having your electrician fixing your plumbing. Our giant military with the tanks and destroyers and fighter jets are the absolute wrong tool for the job at hand. You don't fight a suicide bomber with a tank. To paraphrase I think it was Barry Levinson, our ability to fight a two ocean watt against who? Sweden and Togo? The threat is terrorism. But sadly I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Sigmaleph]

That's an interesting position, Sigma. I've been likening it to having your electrician fixing your plumbing. Our giant military with the tanks and destroyers and fighter jets are the absolute wrong tool for the job at hand. You don't fight a suicide bomber with a tank. To paraphrase I think it was Barry Levinson, our ability to fight a two ocean watt against who? Sweden and Togo? The threat is terrorism. But sadly I'm not sure what the answer is.

True, the giant fucking army isn't there to stop the terrorists, but I did also bring up the people continuously spying on everyone in the name of fighting terrorism. And the TSA, and everything else that is brought up alongside the phrase "post 9/11 world".

The basic point is that "national security" is scary but not actually a priority the way the economy or healthcare or climate change or for that matter drunk driving are. No country is actually going to attack America, because of the aforementioned giant fucking army. Terrorists might, but how many people have died from terrorism in America, ever? A few thousands? Hell, even if you assume the first fifteen years of this century are representative, terrorists kill about 200 people a year? That's less than... um, just about anything that does actually kill people.

National security in the US has a horribly unbalanced money thrown at it vs. possible benefit ratio. Imagine that somehow all that investment in national security was preventing one 9/11-equivalent attack every year, or roughly 3,000 deaths (which I think is wildly overstating the risk of terrorism). Sure, 3,000 deaths a year sounds bad, except that radon-induced lung cancers kill 21,000 people a year in the US. Radon isn't even the leading cause of lung cancer, either.

I argue that by any reasonable sense of priorities Sanders' lack of a strong position on national security is, at best, seven times less important than his lack of a strong position on radon. If getting rid of all counter-terrorism programs entirely and using the money elsewhere reduced radon deaths by about 15% it would be a net win. That's in the universe where there's a 9/11 prevented every year, mind you; in this universe where as far as anyone knows counter-terrorism does fuck-all the balance is way more skewed.

And sure, deaths prevented are not the only standard that matters when choosing between government programs, but I think it gives a rough idea of the order of magnitude of the problem.

I feel a strong urge to add "#utilitarianism it works bitches" at the end of this post

I'd hope he'd get us to do something a bit more effective than twelve-stepping.  Maybe get us some of them newfangled drugs we got for treating chemical dependency.

Yeah, but naltrexone or whatever isn't immediately recognisable as a reference to alcoholism treatment the way twelve-steps are, so I went with that for the joke. My apologies to enemies of twelve-stepping.

[MadCatTLX]

If we're gonna get into it, my understanding is that twelve step programs aren't very effective.

[RavynousHunter]

@Sigma:  Tis cool, I was being purposefully obtuse.

[booley]

They probably don't think Sanders has any chance against Hillary so they concentrate all their effort on her. A self-confessed socialist gathering any kind of serious support just doesn't compute for them.

Mor elikley they already had all this anti hillary material for th least 20 years.

As for Sanders, it's hard to insult him since he's hardly going to take much damage from being called a socialist.  He IS a socialist

Personally I view this as a kind of experiment.  How far can a guy saying what he believes and putting out popular positions go?

[rookie]

Personally I view this as a kind of experiment.  How far can a guy saying what he believes and putting out popular positions go?

That's interesting. The Right has done that the past few cycles with their own version of Sanders. They called theirs Ron Paul. But anyways, it'll be interesting to see how the Left treats theirs.

[Vypernight]

As for Sanders, it's hard to insult him since he's hardly going to take much damage from being called a socialist.  He IS a socialist

The problem is Socialism has multiple meanings.  You have the Nazis, who called themselves Socialists.  You have Communists who thought the State should own everything.  And then you have Democratic Socialists, like Sanders.  Unfortunately, people look at the label Socialist and automatically think, 'Nazi' or 'Commie' instead of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

If Sanders has any chance of winning, we need to get past the stupid labels. 

[Lt. Fred]

Well fascism is not a form of socialism, any more than pink is a form of socialism. Basically the rule of thumb is whether you like people a fair bit or not and want to do them good. If not, chances are you're not a socialist.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Well fascism is not a form of socialism, any more than pink is a form of socialism. Basically the rule of thumb is whether you like people a fair bit or not and want to do them good. If not, chances are you're not a socialist.

I was with you up until you said all socialists genuinely want to do good.  Fact is, if I can accept that Pinochet was a capitalist, there's no reason you can't accept the fact that Mao was a socialist.

But you're right, fascist economics aren't socialism.  They're a "third way", neither socialist nor capitalist.