One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.
Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now.
When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to.
I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that.
JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career.
Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism.
I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves.
I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so?
We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
> Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions.
...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds.
> A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
We are in agreement then.
Unless you're a 100% pacifist you believe in the use of some violence in some situations. The question then is just how much, and with what standards of proof / need.
Hillary associates with many of the people involved in faking evidence of WMDs. And has refused many calls to label them war criminals. That should make her unacceptable.
Trump associates with many hate groups. That should make him unacceptable.
> If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
You do realize that there can be only one president and most of the game isn't picking the one you want, but the one you think can beat the one the other guys elect?
There's no way the USA would elect someone like Bernie because he doesn't look like he'd push the button. Especially when he has to go up against Trump who is itching to.
> Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better?
America needs voting reform. The Trump/Hillary nonsense taking over the country for two years of every four is most of the problem.
But no, a minority candidate will never win. The system is very good at assuring that, so ultimately any nuanced political discussion is meaningless.
And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor.
OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system.
Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage.
"If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure. "[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
Germany is a bad bad example, one thing automation will do, is bring back manufacturing locally, since the labor costs will diminish, so export oriented economies like Germany are for misery in next decade.
I would take 'Murican economy over German any time from on set of 1900s to today and way into future.
edit: also Germany 'really' did not pay off money that was injected during Marshall plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ
(warning: NSFW language, loud)
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.
EDIT: Source: https://mises.org/about-mises They are based here: 518 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501
This would be a really nice comparison, if the cost of living in any random european country happened to be exactly the median cost of living over all US states. As it stands, that article is prettified data garbage.
The problem with the cited statistics is that even PPP-adjusted equivalized disposable household income that accounts for both cash and in-kind transfers still provides only a limited basis for comparison.
For example, observe that the average American person works 30% more than the average German or Dutch person [1]. It should not be surprising that shorter working hours are reflected in lower wages and lower household income.
However, while the reason for that is not always good – too many stay-at-home moms in Germany who'd rather pursue a career, for example – in general, this tends to express a voluntary trade-off of better work-life balance in lieu of higher income. This trade-off generally works because both income and expenses are less volatile; you may not need to save up as much for a rainy day, a huge coinsurance or deductible payment from a medical bill, for your kids' college funds, for the disruption of your income by a pregnancy, or figuring out how to pay for childcare. While few of these things have zero impact on your income situation, that impact tends to be greatly reduced. The modern European social democracy is less characterized by transfering cash from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring affordable essential services for everybody (which also tend to benefit the poor more than the rich and thus are typically redistributive).
In addition, even trying to normalize household income does not account for all the actual differences between the economies; for example, the effects on urban planning (suburban sprawl with a built-in dependence on cars vs. hybrid zones that are walkable, bikable, and have good public transport) can have a major impact on how you live. Likewise, the rise of helicopter parenting in some places comes with increasing demands on time and household budgets.
And while the Western European social democracies are not some magical paradise with both riches and year-long vacations (contrary to what some people seriously seem to believe), they are not socialist hellholes, either.
Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left.
I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.
Holy crap, really!? Source, please, I need more reasons to love Bernie.