Bernie is done. 2020 Election is officially over.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 111
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
And if you, I don't know, make the third largest company in the entire world and invest for decades, why wouldn't you deserve $100 billion? Seems a lot more productive and important than writing a book.
1) most of that work was done by others. The idea that a CEO is solely responsible for building successful companies is a joke. It takes thousands, 10's of thousands of skilled and devoted employees. Without those employees, the billionaire is nothing. So saying he deserves 100 billion and his employees deserve to scrape by is horrible argument. 

2) billionaires are a threat to democracy. Simply by having that much money they are able to tip the scales of democracy in way that benefit them. You are seeing it right now. 2 billionaires are dumping hundreds of millions of dollars to try to protect themselves and their wealth. As the gap between people like Bloomberg and the rest of the country increases, democracy weakens. More and more power ends up in the hands of oligarchs. 

3) bernie's net worth is estimated to be 2 million dollars. Trying to say that both Bernie and Bloomberg's wealth is the same is like saying someone who makes 20 thousand dollars a year and 200 million a year are exactly the same.  They aren't even in the same league. 

God forbid you start a business for peoples' benefit and actually succeed.
no one has argued you shouldn't do that. That is great. What you shouldn't do is spend your life accumulating an astronomical amount of money and then use that money to try twist the democratic system to benefit yourself and screw over the poor. That is what Bloomberg has tried to do and is still trying to do. 
#32
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ILikePie5
seems rather hypocritical when you complain about companies making money off workers, when you have come a millionaire off of taxpayers,  not sure how you square that circle.
#33
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
And the pundits all thought she would win the election.
All the pundits said Bernie couldn't win. All the pundits said bernie was going to drop out after his heart attack. Pundits say the things they want to be true. 

Sanders is currently ignoring the center and right of center with his leftist nonsense. But as I said, it isn't his socialism that will sink him, its his image.
This isn't true. Sanders got the most support from both "moderates" and "conservatives" in Nevada. Pundits like to simplify people down to whether someone is right, center or left. But this is a gross misunderstanding of how people think about things. There are alot of people on the right who would love medicare for all. 

And Trump isn't a radical yelling F-you! to power. 
lol that was half of his election campaign. "crooked hilary" "drain the swamp", are these ringing any bells?

 Trump has always known that the power belongs to the people.
oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men so that the people have power? I didn't realize that corruption and giving power to the people were the same thing. 

You actually think Sanders would win against Trump. 
of course. He has most of trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people etc) without any of the downsides (corruption, lies, misogyny, racism etc). 
#34
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
no one has argued you shouldn't do that. That is great. What you shouldn't do is spend your life accumulating an astronomical amount of money and then use that money to try twist the democratic system to benefit yourself and screw over the poor. That is what Bloomberg has tried to do and is still trying to do. 

What about accumulating large amounts of wealth and not trying to influence the democratic system? Is that okay? Because you are in favor of getting large money out of politics anyway, as am I.

1) most of that work was done by others. The idea that a CEO is solely responsible for building successful companies is a joke. It takes thousands, 10's of thousands of skilled and devoted employees. Without those employees, the billionaire is nothing. So saying he deserves 100 billion and his employees deserve to scrape by is horrible argument. 

2) billionaires are a threat to democracy. Simply by having that much money they are able to tip the scales of democracy in way that benefit them. You are seeing it right now. 2 billionaires are dumping hundreds of millions of dollars to try to protect themselves and their wealth. As the gap between people like Bloomberg and the rest of the country increases, democracy weakens. More and more power ends up in the hands of oligarchs. 

3) bernie's net worth is estimated to be 2 million dollars. Trying to say that both Bernie and Bloomberg's wealth is the same is like saying someone who makes 20 thousand dollars a year and 200 million a year are exactly the same.  They aren't even in the same league. 

1. I was referring to Jeff Bezos by the way. He was the founder as well as the CEO. He took huge risks in creating that company. He organized the labor. You said "the work was done by other people". What I heard was " he gave people jobs and directed employees in such a way as to be successful".
2. I have no problem with billionaires existing if the money was not obtained through illegal means. A good way to do away with their influence would be getting rid of "soft money" or at least capping it in the same manner that hard money is capped. (It is money given to political parties). It has no limit. That should change, because obviously the party can just pressure the politician to do the large donor's bidding anyway.
3. Bloomberg and Bernie aren't in the same league. But my point is that Jeff Bezos did a hell of a lot more work to earn his billions than Bernie did to earn his two million. There was a lot more risk involved in creating a company and expanding it to fight large competitors and therefore a lot more reward than government jobs.
#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
What about accumulating large amounts of wealth and not trying to influence the democratic system? Is that okay? Because you are in favor of getting large money out of politics anyway, as am I.
Honestly, it depends on the amount of wealth. A billionaire is a threat to democracy in the same way a nuclear weapon is a threat. Even if you put strict rules around how it can be used, the risk of it being used is huge. Someone like bloomberg has the money and connections to pay off virtually everyone in the halls of power. His wealth is a threat. 

1. I was referring to Jeff Bezos by the way. He was the founder as well as the CEO. He took huge risks in creating that company. He organized the labor. You said "the work was done by other people". What I heard was " he gave people jobs and directed employees in such a way as to be successful".
ok, but he now has more money than he could possibly spend. He was certainly critical to the success of the company. But the vast majority of the work that was done to make that company a success was done by his employees, not him personally. Does he deserve to be rich for that, absolutely. Does he deserve to have enough money to destroy democracy, absolutely not. 

I have no problem with billionaires existing if the money was not obtained through illegal means. A good way to do away with their influence would be getting rid of "soft money" or at least capping it in the same manner that hard money is capped. (It is money given to political parties). It has no limit. That should change, because obviously the party can just pressure the politician to do the large donor's bidding anyway.
There are lots of improvements we could make to get their money out of politics, but the money itself is a threat. They will always find ways to use it to help them push their agenda (which probably isn't the same agenda as the people). Maybe they buy out all the news agencies, maybe they buy out social media platforms and use those to push their agenda. It doesn't matter what rules you put in place. A man with 100 billion dollars will find a way to use it to benefit himself. It will always be used to amplify his voice to drown out the voices of others. That is not healthy for a democracy. 

Bloomberg and Bernie aren't in the same league. But my point is that Jeff Bezos did a hell of a lot more work to earn his billions than Bernie did to earn his two million. There was a lot more risk involved in creating a company and expanding it to fight large competitors and therefore a lot more reward than government jobs.
could not disagree more. Bernie spent a lifetime devoted to public service and helping people. Bezos designed a website that sells stuff. He did it really well and deserves to be rich. But to pretend that a lifetime of service to the people is worthless is insane. 
Topic's author
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because if he truly was fighting for the people, he would give some of his houses to the people.

Funfact: Trump has donated more of his salary to the people than Bernie.
#37
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bernie spent a lifetime devoted to public service and helping people. Bezos designed a website that sells stuff. He did it really well and deserves to be rich. 

By passing only 7 bills on 30 years? Gimme a break. He hasn’t done anything to help the people. His support runs among young people who have no idea what they’re talking about (Source: I’m in highschool). 
#38
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
So it’s only moral for people who commit to public service to be millionaires or billionaires? Every other method is immoral ? Talk about elitist
#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Because if he truly was fighting for the people, he would give some of his houses to the people.
you say that like he has 100 houses. He has 1 in vermont, 1 in DC (since he works there) and a cabin. 

Funfact: Trump has donated more of his salary to the people than Bernie.
you say that like it is relevant. Trump is raking in more in corruption than his salary is worth. 
#40
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
By passing only 7 bills on 30 years? Gimme a break. He hasn’t done anything to help the people.
one interesting thing is that Sanders often lets others be the author on bills so that they can look like the hero. His goal is to get things passed, not to get glory and electoral points. (see amy klobochar constantly bragging about her shitty record). Letting other, more power hungry, politicians take the spotlight and only caring about getting good laws passed is the definition of putting public service above your own benefit. 


 His support runs among young people who have no idea what they’re talking about (Source: I’m in highschool). 
in nevada he won in almost every category, Left leaning, right leaning, moderate, white voters, voters of color, unionized, non-unionized, with a college degree and without one. He won in virtually every single category (the only one he didn't win was voters over 65). 

His supporters are pretty much everywhere, in all categories. Saying his support is only young people shows you really aren't paying attention. 
#41
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
All the pundits said Bernie couldn't win.
Sanders hasn't won. Hillery lost.

Pundits say the things they want to be true.
Ahem.

Sanders got the most support from both "moderates" and "conservatives" in Nevada.
One state in a democratic primary. What would be a democratic conservative?

"crooked hilary" "drain the swamp", are these ringing any bells?
No. Crooked Hillery was not power.

oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...
Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?

Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people 
You just said Trump was corrupt and not fighting for the people! It's only virtue when Sanders does it huh?

...without any of the downsides (corruption, lies, misogyny, racism etc). 
After the election, you'll see how wrong you are about human nature
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Sanders hasn't won. Hillery lost.
Sanders has won the popular vote in every contest so far. All the pundits for the last year would have told you that won't happen. Pundits predict what they hope will be true. 

One state in a democratic primary. What would be a democratic conservative?
I don't understand your confusion. The democrats are the centrist/center left party. The republicans are the extreme right wing party. There are lots of conservative democrats. I mean pretty much everyone who appears on MSNBC falls into that category. 

"crooked hilary" "drain the swamp", are these ringing any bells?
No. Crooked Hillery was not power.
Are you serious? Hilary clinton ran the democratic establishment. Her campaign team was approving DNC messaging. She was extremely powerful. 

oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...
Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?
yep. multiple associates of his are now in prison. 


Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people 
You just said Trump was corrupt and not fighting for the people! It's only virtue when Sanders does it huh?
The difference is trump is a liar. He cloaks himself in populist messaging to win the election. But once elected he uses power to enrich himself, his family, and his oligarch friend while he bankrupts the country . 

without any of the downsides (corruption, lies, misogyny, racism etc). 
After the election, you'll see how wrong you are about human nature
how so? Are you saying Sanders is those things? or that people simply don't care that trump is a corrupt, lying, misogynist, racist, asshole?
#43
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
one interesting thing is that Sanders often lets others be the author on bills so that they can look like the hero. His goal is to get things passed, not to get glory and electoral points. (see amy klobochar constantly bragging about her shitty record). Letting other, more power hungry, politicians take the spotlight and only caring about getting good laws passed is the definition of putting public service above your own benefit. 

Proof?

in nevada he won in almost every category, Left leaning, right leaning, moderate, white voters, voters of color, unionized, non-unionized, with a college degree and without one. He won in virtually every single category (the only one he didn't win was voters over 65). 

His supporters are pretty much everywhere, in all categories. Saying his support is only young people shows you really aren't paying attention. 

His support is among the populace that is very liberal. Demographic most likely to be very liberal? Young people. And in case you didn’t know voters over 65 are much much much more likely to vote in November; combined with the fact that they’ve lived in a world of communism and socialism, they are extremely less likely to support Bernie Sanders. Moderate Democrats won’t support a radical like Sanders. Enough of them will stay home or vote Trump so that Bernie doesn’t win.
#44
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The democrats are the centrist/center left party. The republicans are the extreme right wing party.

If this is true, why is Sanders winning? He’s a radical progressive and very left wing.
#45
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Trumps networth has gone down too. First President in modern history to have his networth drop. “Corruption.”
Topic's author
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Not by an insignificant amount either. He claimed to lose 1 billion by switching jobs to President. Since a lot of his value is in his branding and the corrupt MSM has no problems fleecing Trump of his wealth.
Topic's author
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Open border policy is centrist and enforcing the law is radical far-right.

#48
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
The democrats are the centrist/center left party. The republicans are the extreme right wing party.
If this is true, why is Sanders winning? He’s a radical progressive and very left wing.
Because the people are much more left wing than the democratic establishment. The party got hijacked around the time Clinton became president. Since then the people running the party have only been slightly to the left of the republicans on economic issues. So while they were center left socially, they were right wing economically. The country has had no left wing voice for a long time. This has led to more and more people getting fed up as the right wing economics from the republicans and then more right wing economics from the democrats consistently crushes the working class out of existence. 

Now that there is a real left of center voice as a viable option. He is crushing the establishment dems. 
#49
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Is Bernie a far left winger? It’s a pretty simple question and pretty simple answer. Yes. If you deny this then there’s not much to argue because we have a fundamentally different opinion on semantics
#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Is Bernie a far left winger?
No. His ideas are right in line with what lots western countries are doing. He is only considered far left because the 2 parties in america are far right and center right when it comes to economic policy. Anyone left of center seems "far left" when your frame of reference is a all right wing policy. 


If you deny this then there’s not much to argue because we have a fundamentally different opinion on semantics
The problem we have is that the terms left and right are fairly subjective. They mean very different things to different people. They were simplistic terms designed to describe ideology in revolutionary france. The world has gotten much more complicated since then making such simplistic descriptions next to useless. 
#51
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
No. His ideas are right in line with what lots western countries are doing. He is only considered far left because the 2 parties in america are far right and center right when it comes to economic policy. Anyone left of center seems "far left" when your frame of reference is a all right wing policy. 

I’m talking in general. Every aspect of Bernie Sanders is left wing. Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar are all Center left. It’s just common sense. I don’t see anyone denies that Bernie is much more left wing than the average Democrat .
#52
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m talking in general. Every aspect of Bernie Sanders is left wing.
true. Bernie is definitely on the left. But the media would have you believe that he is some crazy far leftist/communist. And that idea is laughable. Most of his main points are things that are done in other capitalist countries. 

Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar are all Center left. It’s just common sense.

not really, no. Biden is a bit all over the place. He pushed Reagan to the right on "tough on crime" laws. He has been pro-war. He has alot of areas where he has a track record of right wing policy. Buttigieg has no record to run on and his campaign promises shifted to dramatically right when he realized he couldn't win as a progressive. I'm not sure he actually stands for anything other than his own career. I'm not super familiar with Klobuchar's record because she is largely irrelevant. 

These "center left" candidates have alot of right wing policy in their records. (or no record at all). 
 
I don’t see anyone denies that Bernie is much more left wing than the average Democrat .
That is because people ask the wrong questions. If you ask someone if they are left, right or moderate, alot of people will tell you they are moderate. If you asked that same person if they supported left wing positions (like medicare for all), they would likely tell you they support it. The democrats have made being "left" a slur for a long time so people say they aren't when they actually are. If Bernie were actually that much further left than the average democrat, he wouldn't be winning. People support his policies even when they say they are "moderate". 
Topic's author
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
America is uniquely founded on freedom, in fact being the only nation with a constitutional right to speak out against the government.

Comparing America's Overton window with western countries is a classic apples/oranges fallacy.

Bernie is hardcore authoritarian left, no excuses. 


Interestingly, Bernie only supports and praises western Nations with economic opportunities and free capitalistic markets as center-right Denmark has (less authoritarian regulations on businesses) while at the same time promising crippling regulations on all job creators (like Cuba and Venezuela have).


#54
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Comparing America's Overton window with western countries is a classic apples/oranges fallacy.
Why? america is a representative democracy. It has a mixed capitolist and socialist economy. It is fundamentally no different than those other countries. The overton window is to the right because both political parties shifted right, not because the american people are right wing. 

Bernie is hardcore authoritarian left, no excuses. 
No, he isn't. He isn't authoritarian at all and he isn't "hardcore left". 

Interestingly, Bernie only supports and praises western Nations with economic opportunities and free capitalistic markets as center-right Denmark has (less authoritarian regulations on businesses) while at the same time promising crippling regulations on all job creators (like Cuba and Venezuela have).
lol i don't even know where to start on this. He hasn't proposed crippling regulations. He is suggesting that america should be a country with economic opportunities and strong social programs like Denmark. 


Topic's author
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
He isn't authoritarian at all...

Oh this is so, so easy going down his list on his website berniesanders.com

1) Taxation is authoritarian.
2) Price fixing drugs is authoritarian.
3) Destroying existing energy industries while subsidizing other energy industries is authoritarian.
4) Forgiving student debt while not compensating students that worked and saved money for school is authoritarian (and unfair to boot)
5) Price fixing real estate is authoritarian.
6) Declaring healthcare as a "human right" is most definitely authoritarian to anyone working in the health care industry.

And on and on, everything Sanders wants to fundamentally change in this country requires the force of an authoritative government backed with Federal guns. In essence, using the government to help some people by restricting the freedoms of others. That's pure authoritarianism when your policies take away or restrict freedoms of American citizens, not the Orangemanbad drivel definition the left embraces. 



Sanders is all about empowering the authority of the government, not the people.
#56
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
1) Taxation is authoritarian.
lol so literally every government that has, or ever will, exist is authoritarian? By that standard the word loses all meaning. 

2) Price fixing drugs is authoritarian.
Has anyone suggested we should price fix drugs? The argument I have heard sanders make is that a single payer system would give america negotiating power against extortionate drug companies. 

3) Destroying existing energy industries while subsidizing other energy industries is authoritarian.
why? The government does that right now. How many subsidies do the republicans give to fossil fuel companies? By that standard the republicans are extremely authoritarian. 

4) Forgiving student debt while not compensating students that worked and saved money for school is authoritarian (and unfair to boot)
I'm starting to think you don't know what authoritarian means. Forgiving debt is a service that would benefit a massive number of people, help the economy and hurt no one. 

5) Price fixing real estate is authoritarian.
who has advocated for that?

6) Declaring healthcare as a "human right" is most definitely authoritarian to anyone working in the health care industry.
this one doesn't even make sense. How is declaring something that every human needs a human right authoritarian? It is just acknowledging reality. 

And on and on, everything Sanders wants to fundamentally change in this country requires the force of an authoritative government backed with Federal guns.
what? It is backed by the popular will of the people. The only reason sanders would be able to do these things is if the people back him. That is not authoritarian, that is democracy. 

In essence, using the government to help some people by restricting the freedoms of others.
no, it is helping everyone. That is what the government exists for. 

Sanders is all about empowering the authority of the government, not the people.
again, this doesn't make sense. Sanders is about using the power of the government to help and provide services to the people. Why does giving people healthcare and an education seem authoritarian to you?
#57
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
When Bernie won't pull any new voters
#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Sanders has won the popular vote in every contest so far.
Of the democratic party, in two states only. Meaning he's won the under 35 leftist votes in two sparsely populated states.

The democrats are the centrist/center left party.
What year are you talking about? Because last I checked, open borders, and abortions after births are zany left.

The republicans are the extreme right wing party.
From your vantage point, Fidel Castro would be extreme right. Right and left are not so designated by how far they are from you.

There are lots of conservative democrats. I mean pretty much everyone who appears on MSNBC falls into that category.
Laughable. Even Sanders just said that he has been treated better by CNN than by MSDNC. They aren't even a news channel anymore.

Are you serious? Hilary clinton ran the democratic establishment. Her campaign team was approving DNC messaging. She was extremely powerful. 
The phrase goes, "speaking truth to power", not, "speaking truth to the powerful." Trump yelled an F-you! to real power. And that's why TDS is so obvious today.

oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...
Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?

yep. multiple associates of his are now in prison. 
If you were able to distinguish between your perception and reality, you'd know that multiple associates of his now being in prison (for nothing having to do with him) does not mean you can distinguish between your perception and reality. It seems to have made you feel even more that your perception is reality.

You said this of Trump... "I didn't realize that corruption and giving power to the people were the same thing."

Then you immediately after said this, "Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people..." 

Do you see why we would think those were contradictory statements?

The difference is trump is a liar.
Trump didn't make your contradictory statements. You did.

He cloaks himself in populist messaging to win the election. But once elected he uses power to enrich himself, his family, and his oligarch friend while he bankrupts the country
Yet the economy is better than its been in decades, and Trump has lost personal  riches. What are we to say to you when your statements are so blatantly contradicted by reality?

After the election, you'll see how wrong you are about human nature.

how so? Are you saying Sanders is those things? or that people simply don't care that trump is a corrupt, lying, misogynist, racist, asshole?
I'm saying the 3rd option, Trump is not who you think he is, and socialism works only on paper. Add in human nature and socialism becomes indistinguishable from stupidity.

You will probably spin yourself another rationalization (that will also contradict reality) to explain why you were so wrong about Sanders and what Americans want. But you will have 4 years to mull over it.

Topic's author
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You will probably spin yourself another rationalization (that will also contradict reality) to explain why you were so wrong about Sanders and what Americans want. But you will have 4 years to mull over it.

Americans want freedom. Bernie isn't a freedom lover.
#60
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Americans want freedom. Bernie isn't a freedom lover.
Freedom hasn't exactly been going well lately. Wages are stagnant, wealth gaps are growing, debt is out of control. 

To republicans, freedom means the freedom to be gouged and financially exploited by the rich. It means oligarchy. To the establishment dems it means pretty much the same thing, just with less racism thrown in. 

People are tired of the status quo. They want their lives to actually get better and both the republicans and democratic establishment have not been able to do it. Sanders wants to make people's lives better by giving them healthcare, an education and growing wages. You can scream "authoritarian" all you want. It doesn't, in any way, diminish the power of his message or the appeal of his platform.