Bernie Sanders Running for President

[Czcibor]

I don't dispute this, but I think that the author makes a valid point about how the political failure of the Gulf War set up a necessity for US involvement in the region for the decades that followed.

Not specially, the US were bound to Saudis from somewhere round 1950s.

I don't think I agree. In his address to the House in 1991 he vied for a more diplomatic approach. I don't think that Sanders would hang an ally out to dry if military action was required. I do think that he would be more likely to attempt to exhaust other avenues of resolution before sending in the tanks than other more hawkish types.

Kuwait was invaded in August 1990, while this guy was still trying to talk Hussein into reason in January 1991. It's very nice of him that he let his allies being occupied in order to keep high moral ground. Just it looks a bit different, when you are the occupied one, then you'd rather expect immediate military reaction.

I'm observing the same with respect to Ukraine. At this moment when on Polish internet someone says "wygłosić wyrazy głębokiego zaniepokojenia" (translation of English term "express deep concern") it usually is an irony of western European powers, that don't care so much about Ukraine to actually support it and instead prefer to make nice PC speeches.

I suppose my opinion is that it seems like the US has frequently played too much of a role in regional conflicts. I'm not suggesting that military aid be cut off, but that other countries in regions where conflict is occurring take up more of a role. In the case of the Middle East the US involvement could be balanced by countries like, say, Saudi Arabia. In Eastern Europe could that role be filled by other European allies? I'm not convinced that nuclear proliferation is the best step toward a more secure political landscape...

Interesting idea of making west Europe more involved. In theory I agree, just don't see how to make it work. Thus, if left into our devices, I'd think about my country going nuclear, as the only workable alternative. (also expect a few more countries reaching the same conclusion) Keep in mind that from here the calculation look much different - hybrid war with Russia presents direct threat, while nuclear proliferation is for us a purely hypothetical one. (the only country in region that could seriously poses a threat is already nuke armed, so a few more armed actually shift a balance of terror into a favourable direction)

 

[Hornbein]

Bernie blasts NYT Mag reporter's hair question
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-blasts-nyt-mag-reporters-hair-question-126934490446.html

Bob Woodward reported that Hillary said she wasn't interested in hair or clothes until she got to Washington. There she found out that hair and clothes were very important.

Few understand the economy, but everyone has on opinion about hairstyles.

 

[Evo]

He's against GMO, BYE BERNIE! Maybe get a clue.

Golden rice

Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

Bernie's uninformed GMO stance

Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

Bernie is against GMO. Shame on you Bernie!

 

[brainpushups]

He's against GMO,

I think, according to forum rules, you need to provide a source. Yes, he wants GMO food labeled, but I am not sure that Bernie is anti-GMO.

 

[Evo]

I think, according to forum rules, you need to provide a source. Yes, he wants GMO food labeled, but I am not sure that Bernie is anti-GMO.

Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.

 

[brainpushups]

Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO.

Where? All I see is about the 'right to know' act which is about labeling.

 

[brainpushups]

Here is one part from his website:

WASHINGTON, May 22 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let Vermont and other states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing ingredients that have been genetically modified.

“All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their kids and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods,” Sanders said. “I believe that when a mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the right to know what she is feeding her child.”

The Vermont House on May 10 voted 99-42 for legislation calling for labeling food products that contain genetically modified organisms. Opponents raised concerns that the state could be sued by bio-technology or food industries. Sanders’ proposal would make it clear that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced using genetically modified organisms or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

“Vermont and other states must be allowed to label GMO foods,” Sanders said. “My provision would protect states from threatened lawsuits.”

Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Sixty-four countries around the world already require the labeling of genetically modified foods, including all of the European Union, Russia, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, labels must list more than 3,000 ingredients but the Food and Drug Administration has resisted labels for genetically altered foods.

The Sanders Amendment would make it clear that states may require clear labels that let consumers know what they're eating. “Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said.

The medical community has raised serious health concerns about genetically engineered food. The American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association have passed resolutions that support labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients.[\Quote]

 

[Infrared]

My partially-formed thoughts on GMO labeling: In general, giving the consumer more information to reach a decision is a positive if it doesn't come at the expense of some other entity. One could argue that labeling does come at the expense of the producer but in that case why shouldn't the consumer be free to make a decision based on personal ignorance? If an adult decides against, say, visiting a doctor because they believe in new age medicine, they have clearly made a mistake but should be free to do so. And this is assuming the only reasons for rejecting such food are health-related; some might object on moral grounds (funnily enough, I have a friend who objects to non-GMO food on 'moral' grounds since GMOs are much more efficient). I find it a bit unsettling that the government can decide on our behalf that GMOs are fine for our consumption and so it is okay to force them upon us while it is still a controversial issue (rightfully or not) in the public sphere.

It shouldn't be relevant, but, just to clarify, I have no problems consuming GMOs.

To Evo: I see your passion about this issue, but could you find a softer way to express it than to automatically characterize a proponent of labeling as "an idiot that doesn't understand GMO" (along with the rest of your two posts) because of a single vote? Perhaps why you can see why this might be found hostile.

 

[WWGD]

Maybe we need to have a thread on 'Reliable Sources or Polls'.

In the NE, I heard about Siena political polls, which were primarily, if not exclusively, NY State, and the Quinnipicac Polls from Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, which seemed to be much broader.

https://www.siena.edu/centers-institutes/siena-research-institute/political-polls/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/

How about http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/ ?

He (Nate Silver) "guessed" most congressional and national elections correctly.

 

[micromass]

Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.

Where? Please provide sources where he voted against GMO (and not the labeling).

 

[Rick21383]

Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is an idiot that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such an idiot in either case.

Oh the irony...

Care to provide a source for this? You need to stop jumping to conclusions on issues you don't even understand. As others have pointed out, Sanders has said that states should be allowed to label GMO foods. He did not "vote against GMO". Let's understand the facts before taking a stance...

*facepalm

 

[mheslep]

Here is one part from his website:

That last part about about the "medical community" raising serious concerns about GMO is about as accurate as saying the space community has serious concerns about visits from UFOs.

I saw some lights that seemed to be in a line and it was almost like an upside-down check mark, and I saw them fly by and thought it was awfully strange," [Astronaut Leroy] Chiao told The Huffington Post

Maybe one of the GMO labeling Senators should start an investigation, because "mothers" have a right to know who might be watching their child from space.

 

[Evo]

Here is one part from his website:

You're correct, I read

Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

It appeared to me that this is part of a longer term plan to control or stop production of GMO foods. What else would be the point of gathering this information? But I am breaking my own rules here on speculating. I am sorry.

 

[Czcibor]

Mheslep posted where he voted against GMO. I linked to it in my post. Either he is someone that doesn't understand GMO, or more likely he was just told to vote against it, not understanding it, and I will not vote for such a person in either case.

May I suggest an alternative explanation? Too high amount of ideology, too low of boring rationalism/pragmatism. Common problem among politicians and unfortunately voters promote that.

I mean such dogmatic anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-GMO is a part of a typical package offer among left wing. He just offered that. (In the same way you may be content hearing a right wing US politician speaking about GMO and nuclear power... just the creationism and gun part would be embarrassing)

 

[Astronuc]

Bernie Sanders: 'People Are Responding to Our Message'
http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-people-responding-message-161520074.html

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said today he does not know whether new poll numbers putting him within 7 percentage points of Hillary Clinton in Iowa mean her campaign for the Democratic http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/elections/presidential-nomination.htm is in trouble, but his campaign is "doing great."

As president, he would probably be a good check on both of the 'established' or 'establishment' parties.

Bernie Sanders talks with Bill Moyers - October 31, 2014
http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/30/bernie-sanders-big-money-big-media/

 

[Astronuc]

Bernie Sanders addresses Christian conservative students at Liberty University
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-courts-christian-conservative-129086320421.html

Sanders’ appearance at Liberty was the boldest example yet of his attempt to appeal to people outside the traditional umbrella of the Democratic party and expand the party’s base — something he called engaging in “civil discourse.” The independent who calls himself a “democratic socialist” has sought to topple Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.

 

[Pythagorean]

You're correct, I read It appeared to me that this is part of a longer term plan to control or stop production of GMO foods. What else would be the point of gathering this information? But I am breaking my own rules here on speculating. I am sorry.

From Sanders himself in a Reddit AMA (an AMA is an ask me anything that gives the public access to politicians and celebrities to directly ask them questions. Celebs and pols are verified by reddit, and the proof is posted at the beginning of the AMA:

I respectfully disagree. It is not my view, nor have I suggested, that GMO food causes health problems. What I have said is that the people of our country, as well as people around the world, have the right to make choices in terms of what they eat and have the right to have labels telling them whether or not food is made with GMOs. As you know, GMO labeling exists in dozens of countries and the state legislature in Vermont also passed a bill requiring that. I support that effort.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iama/comments/36j690/i_am_senator_bernie_sanders_democratic_candidate/

 

[Pythagorean]

Things I like about Sanders:

against Citizens United

The major issue in terms of our electoral system is truly campaign finance reform. Right now, we are at a moment in history where the Koch brothers and other billionaires are in the process of buying politicians and elections. We need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment. We need to pass disclosure legislation. We need to move toward public funding of elections. We also have got to see an increased federal role in the outrageous gerrymandering that Republican states have created and in voter suppression. These are the main issues that I'll be tackling in the coming months.

against TPP:

I believe that the TPP is a disastrous agreement and I am working as hard as I can to see it defeated. One of the reasons that the middle class of this country is disappearing is because we have lost some 60,000 factories since 2001 and millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs. We need trade agreements that protect and benefit working families, not just the CEOs of large corporations.

honest about compromise:

last year, I helped write the most comprehensive veterans legislation passed in many years. Trust me, I had to change my position on very important aspects of veterans' health care in order to get it passed. In terms of health care, I am an advocate of a Medicare-for-all single-payer program. I voted for the Affordable Care Act, not because I think it is the end place as to where we should be, but because I was able to get a major provision in it that greatly expanded primary health care -- which is helping many millions of people today. So the bottom line is that you have to stick by your values but when you're in an elected position, especially when you're in a conservative Congress, now and then you're going to have to compromise.

holding judgment until he has more information:

Colorado has led the effort toward legalizing marijuana and I'm going to watch very closely to see the pluses and minuses of what they have done. I will have more to say about this issue within the coming months.

against USA Patriot Act

I voted against the USA Patriot Act and voted against reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. Obviously, terrorism is a serious threat to this country and we must do everything that we can to prevent attacks here and around the world. I believe strongly that we can protect our people without undermining our constitutional rights and I worry very very much about the huge attacks on privacy that we have seen in recent years -- both from the government and from the private sector. I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society and this is something I will oppose as vigorously as I can.

Wants to stop interfering in middle east

At the end of the day, the war against ISIS will only be won when the Muslim countries in the area fully engage and defeat ISIS and other groups that are distorting what Islam is supposed to be about.

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...st-scorecard-many-interventions-few-successes

 

[mheslep]

WSJ has front page article placing a price tag on Sanders new program proposals - $16 trillion / ten years. Largest part to come from single payer health plan.

 

[Pythagorean]

WSJ has front page article placing a price tag on Sanders new program proposals - $16 trillion / ten years. Largest part to come from single payer health plan.

It was 18, actually, and 15 of it was speculative. Washington Post did a little verifying and clarifying:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

 

[mheslep]

...Washington Post did a little verifying and clarifying:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Paul Waldman, the author of that blog post and progressive writer for the American Prospect, did ... something.

 

[Czcibor]

against TPP:

What exactly he finds wrong there?

 

[Pythagorean]

What exactly he finds wrong there?

The TPP has rules in it that essentially allow a corporation to sue a country if they feel it's policies are encroaching on its profits and the court process is handled by a very small set of arbiters that are representatives of the corporations.

This can lead to situations where policies are being set in the interest of international corporations rather than the citizens, and could lead to abuse by corporations (monetary threats over policy changes) at the expense of citizens of the host country.

 

[Astronuc]

Bernie Sanders Visited Stephen Colbert
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/bernie-sanders-stephen-colbert-review-129421201710.html

Bernie prefers to be called a 'Progressive'.

 

[Czcibor]

The TPP has rules in it that essentially allow a corporation to sue a country if they feel it's policies are encroaching on its profits and the court process is handled by a very small set of arbiters that are representatives of the corporations.

This can lead to situations where policies are being set in the interest of international corporations rather than the citizens, and could lead to abuse by corporations (monetary threats over policy changes) at the expense of citizens of the host country.

Americans made my country to already sign something in this line many years ago. So would he also try to reverse prior deals?

 

[Pythagorean]

Americans made my country to already sign something in this line many years ago. So would he also try to reverse prior deals?

No idea. I'm not sure Sanders really has a solid foreign policy, I like him for his domestic policy. What was the name of the agreement?

 

[Evo]

I don't trust Sanders. For example, he claims that all he did was ask for GMO labeling on foods. Not true, per his website

Sanders’ measure also would require the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to report to Congress within two years on the percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

There is ZERO reason to ask for this information if all you want is to label foods for consumers. Also, why push this labeling that panders to conspiracy theories and misinformation? Does he want labels to show rodent fur, and feces and insects, etc...that are all in processed foods? No. Seems to me he is pandering to the frightened masses for votes, IMO.

 

[Infrared]

I don't trust Sanders. For example, he claims that all he did was ask for GMO labeling on foods.

Source?

Not true, per his website There is ZERO reason to ask for this information if all you want is to label foods for consumers. Also, why push this labeling that panders to conspiracy theories and misinformation?

Because apparently the overwhelming majority of people want GMO labeled http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling# . Sanders' proposal didn't even require GMOs to be labeled, it only allowed states the right to require them be labeled.

Does he want labels to show rodent fur, and feces and insects, etc...that are all in processed foods? No. Seems to me he is pandering to the frightened masses for votes, IMO.

Labeling GMO is the norm in many other countries (including all of Europe). I don't think we need to assume malicious intent here.

 

[Evo]

Source?

oops, I meant to edit that, it was some members here that suggested that and I pointed out that they were wrong.

 

[Evo]

I don't think we need to assume malicious intent here.

The intent here, IMO, is that he's pandering to GMO fear mongerers and the people that buy into this fear. Why not come out in support of the science showing it's safe? You don't have to agree with me. His website leads one to believe that GMO foods are unsafe. We recently had a thread about the safety of GMO foods, yet Sander's website closes his GMO page with

The medical community has raised serious health concerns about genetically engineered food. The American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association have passed resolutions that support labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients.

Does this sound like he's not against GMO? Or even open minded? He doesn't say anything about all of the evidence about the safety, nor does he care to post about what GMO actually is.

 

[Infrared]

oops, I meant to edit that, it was some members here that suggested that and I pointed out that they were wrong.

But didn't you use that as a reason to say that you didn't trust Sanders, arguing that he lied about his stance on labeling GMO?

I don't trust Sanders. For example, he claims that all he did was ask for GMO labeling on foods. Not true

Assuming that the case for GMOs being safe is as strong then as it is now (which I don't have reason to doubt), then I agree generally (but not in degree) with

The intent here, IMO, is that he's pandering to GMO fear mongerers and the people that buy into this fear. Why not come out in support of the science showing it's safe? You don't have to agree with me. His website leads one to believe that GMO foods are unsafe. We recently had a thread about the safety of GMO foods, yet Sander's website closes his GMO page with

That quote isn't the best but it is possible that Sanders has changed his mind on this issue. I couldn't find many great sources post his proposed amendment so forgive me citing this (remove if necessary, but I think it should be fine considering that Sanders himself is speaking), but Sanders gave a reddit ama where he says "It is not my view, nor have I suggested, that GMO food causes health problems. What I have said is that the people of our country, as well as people around the world, have the right to make choices in terms of what they eat and have the right to have labels telling them whether or not food is made with GMOs".

https://www.reddit.com/r/iama/comments/36j690/i_am_senator_bernie_sanders_democratic_candidate/

Does the first sentence contradict his senate page quote? Maybe, but at this point we are nitpicking a bit. I agree that he probably should have been more forthright with the science.

 

[Evo]

But didn't you use that as a reason to say that you didn't trust Sanders, arguing that he lied about his stance on labeling GMO?

I said he was against GMO and they said that he was just asking for labeling, nothing more.

 

[Infrared]

I said he was against GMO and they said that he was just asking for labeling, nothing more.

Apologies, I misinterpreted.

 

[Evo]

Does the first sentence contradict his senate page quote? Maybe, but at this point we are nitpicking a bit. I agree that he probably should have been more forthright with the science.

It does seem he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. If Sanders updates his website to come out with information showing GMOs are safe, then I'll change my mind. But right now, his website is posting negative information on the safety of GMOs.

 

[Evo]

Apologies, I misinterpreted.

No problem, I actually meant to fix my post, then the dogs wanted out, then I had to deal with dinner, then I couldn't remember what I was doing.