Flagg wrote:
WAT?! (To bolded).
1) We already are Democratic Socialists. We're in a democracy that practices all sorts of socialism. If you're an American, you're a Democratic Republican Socialist! Well, maybe not as "democratic" as it used to be, but close enough.
2) A presidential election is exactly the time and the place to sell new ideas.
She knows that already that America already practices socialism, but says it's risky to try to sell that during a presidential election where the price of failure is electing Donald Trump.
But let's talk about why that doesn't even apply to Bernie "Brings a sharpie and a stick-on name card to a wedding reception and writes Mr. <grooms last name> On it to steal cocktail shrimp and booze" Sanders.
Oh dear...
Sanders' issue is that he has none. You know the Biden line about Dick Cheney? "A noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well that's the exact same issue with Bernie. Only his answer to everything is "A noun, a verb, and We have to reign in Wall Street!" Now, I agree with the assertion that Wall Street needs to be "reigned in" (I'd use the term "hobbled").
He specifically mentions that we need to put back Glass-Stegall in place and break up the banks since they are too large now and the collapse of one could collapse the economy due to how much wealth is concentrated into them.
You also fail to mention all of Bernie's other policy positions such as dealing with money in politics, raising minimum wage, getting college to be tuition free, single payer, eliminating the gender wage gap, etc, etc.
But when asked how to handle the delicate balance of keeping the brutal Assad regime in check, while also fighting ISIS and keeping the Russians involved in that fight and the myriad of other factors, if the answer, like Sanders' answers usually do, resembles: "Well, first of all, we need to reign in Wall Street!", that's a no-go.
Bernie's stance has been we need to stop the policy of fighting both Assad and ISIS at the same time. Focus on fighting ISIS and stop with the cause of regime change in ousting Assad. He's in general an opponent of the US conducting regime change in other countries.
On the topic of "Wall St" he also mentioned other firms are buying our politicians, including the defense industry which influences all these military conflicts we end up getting into.
You don't get to pick what kind of President you want to be when it comes to domestic or foreign policy. I'm not Hillary Clinton's #1 fan. In fact I think she's too far to the right of Obama on foreign policy and is more of the same Wall Street big money bullshittery, but since no actual democrats were strong enough to challenge her in the primaries (as opposed to Liberal independents loved by the NRA who hated Super-Delegates until they were the only way he could win) and the GOP has gone full-drooling idiot, she's the only one who has any credible experience both foreign and domestic, and thus is the only one remotely qualified.
So your issue with Bernie is that he's an independent. So only long serving card carrying Democrats supported by the party establishment can run for the Democratic nomination now? I guess were resigned to mostly corrupt politicians from here on out then...
How is Bernie loved by the NRA? Except for a few occasions he's voted against NRA interests.
As far as Super-Delegates goes, you realize they were created specifically because the party establishment was cranky they were left out of the process so the party created Super Delegates to placate them?
I would argue if not for Hillary being Secretary of State under Obama, Bernie Sander's foreign policy experience would outstrip Hillary's or at least be equal.
