Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GAROVORKIN

Had Bernie Sander Won the Presidency How Do You Think The Country Would be Doing now?

19 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

He was in favor single payer Healthcare system  and higher taxes and free college education for everyone.  On the issue of immigration it seems unlikely that he would have  taken a similar approach to Trump.  What do you think an America under Berne Sanders  would be like? How would he do on jobs creation and economics?   What would his foreign policy be like ?  Who would be the biggest winners and losers in America under a Sander Presidency? 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would be happening, GOP would still control congress and many states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Seli said:

Nothing would be happening.

That has never sounded as appealing as it does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could make the argument that the (theoretical) swing left in a Post-Trump world is preferable to a Sanders presidency immobilised by a Republican led Congress.

Rachel Maddow did a segment a while ago looking at the numbers* around Congressional elections, and as much as the stats prior to Republican success in 2010 (I think) was relatively large compared to other pre-election periods, it was dwarfed by that seen amongst Democrats in advance of next years mid term elections. I don't know how that will play out though, or whether the status quo in Congress will be shaken up. From what we've seen so far it seems like a mixed bag - certainly a swing towards the left, but not quite enough to flip as many seats as hoped. I suppose it's still early days yet - after all, we haven't even started the Nuclear war yet!

* I realise that's pretty vague; iirc it was both about money invested and number of challengers registered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a Sanders presidency would have been interesting. Even if very little happened congressionally, I'm certain Sanders would have been very good at using the office to bring his appeals directly to the American people in a palatable and coherent manner. Which I think would have resonated a lot better with a broader demographic than the current administration's self-promotional incoherency is.

 

1 hour ago, Leap said:

I suppose you could make the argument that the (theoretical) swing left in a Post-Trump world is preferable to a Sanders presidency immobilised by a Republican led Congress.

I'm glad that we've established that losing is in many ways somehow preferable to winning.

Unless of course - winning is preferable. With a theoretical swing left with a sanders win, followed by a slow dip left via a sanders presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It would be totally dope bro.

Edited by Week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that Bernie Sanders would just be Jimmy Carter 2.0, only with better speaking skills.

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

That has never sounded as appealing as it does now.

Basically this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowleper said:

I'm glad that we've established that losing is in many ways somehow preferable to winning.

Unless of course - winning is preferable. With a theoretical swing left with a sanders win, followed by a slow dip left via a sanders presidency.

Yes, just like the slow dip left via the Obama presidency, which in no way resulted in a hard yank back to the right in the form of an egotistical, maniacal Orangutan.

I'm sure there's any number of proverbs or examples that show why claiming that winning is always winning (and vice versa) is shortsighted, but I'm sure you're already aware of that. Personally, while I'd have voted Sanders over Trump, I think it's naive and cynical to pretend that there's no opportunity here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is cynical to overstate the partisan opportunities of the trump presidency. And particularly naïve when there is more than a good chance that these opportunities might not even pan out.

Personally -- I just can't swallow the initial statement I quoted, that a trump presidency could theoretically in any way or form be seen as preferable to a Sanders presidency. This is very different from saying that there are now opportunities open to us that are in some ways beneficial. That's not a hard argument to make. But instead the argument seems to be that a loss now might be better with a chance of a slightly bigger win in 2-4 years. I really just don't like that new milepost. It frames a loss as a pseudo-win via potential electoral lottery. And I'm not the sort who even buys scratch-its.

I'm fairly certain we are in near complete agreement here. And I know that you are framing this in very speculative terms. But it still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not really willing to forgive you for it unless you first buy me a beer. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, snowleper said:

 

I'm fairly certain we are in near complete agreement here. And I know that you are framing this in very speculative terms. But it still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not really willing to forgive you for it unless you first buy me a beer. :P

I can agree to those terms. ;) Look! A beer that you'd never have had without the Trump presidency. Thanks, Donald. 

Quote

I think it is cynical to overstate the partisan opportunities of the trump presidency.

Quite the opposite - it's wildly optimistic. Imagine a scenario with Trump et al impeached and imprisoned. Imagine the incumbent Republican politicians who supported him voted out, replaced by and large with a majority democrat congress. The political backlash from Watergate lasted for years, I can only imagine the backlash from Stupid Watergate lasting even longer. That's the sort of opportunity to get a policy like Universal Healthcare passed, which never would have happened with Sanders in the Oval Office and a minority in Congress.

Of course, none of that has happened yet, and there's no reliable way of knowing it may yet happen. But I certainly think it's within the realm of possibility, and as such I believe the argument that the Trump presidency may be ''worth it'' has at least some merit. And if you can't forgive me for that, well, another beer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think it's optimistic to think that we might get much of anything without at the same time taking too much damage. But I think it is cynical if after all the damage is done -- all we have to show for it is a slightly better electoral victory, or a house and senate that is slightly more even than it currently is.

Even if we get everything you said -- but at the cost of thousands of human lives (possibly through the engineered failure of obamacare), are we really ready to call that a victory? Much less if millions die via American interventionism in Venezuela or north Korea (or the continued occupation of the middle east).

Hell. Would you say that the Bush administration was worth it since we got Obama afterwards? (I'd assume not).

It's fair to say that opportunities exist, or that there is a silver lining somewhere in all of this. But if we look at it as cost vs. benefit -- it's hard for me to see enough benefit to cancel out all the likely awful we're headed for... So yeah - I'll take any beer you give me. The world is too grim not to enjoy the momentary respite of friendly company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is bernie sanders?  The chicken guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowleper said:

Yeah, I think it's optimistic to think that we might get much of anything without at the same time taking too much damage. But I think it is cynical if after all the damage is done -- all we have to show for it is a slightly better electoral victory, or a house and senate that is slightly more even than it currently is.

Even if we get everything you said -- but at the cost of thousands of human lives (possibly through the engineered failure of obamacare), are we really ready to call that a victory? Much less if millions die via American interventionism in Venezuela or north Korea (or the continued occupation of the middle east).

Hell. Would you say that the Bush administration was worth it since we got Obama afterwards? (I'd assume not).

It's fair to say that opportunities exist, or that there is a silver lining somewhere in all of this. But if we look at it as cost vs. benefit -- it's hard for me to see enough benefit to cancel out all the likely awful we're headed for... So yeah - I'll take any beer you give me. The world is too grim not to enjoy the momentary respite of friendly company.

Well, that depends on what happens of course, all I can do is wait and see, and hope for the best. And maybe buy a WaPo subscription (if only for the Crossword).

I think perhaps I'm a little too inclined to have positive expectations of the future, and that's why the cost/benefit ratio looks better from where I'm standing. But then, it's not my life on the line if Obamacare goes down, so it's very easy for me to sit here and say in a very cold and callous way, ''well maybe if the end result is Universal healthcare, or improved Environmental regulations, then it's worth it''. So I'm guilty of that too, I just hope I'm right. 

Should Nuclear war break out, there will either be no beer left or nobody left to drink it, both scenarios I find utterly unacceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

I always thought that Bernie Sanders would just be Jimmy Carter 2.0, only with better speaking skills.

Except that Jimmy belonged to the centrist wing of the party (in some respects, foreshadowing Reagan-era deregulation). Bernie's a different kettle of fish.

Anyway, to answer the question, nothing would be happening, due to congressional obstructionism. The one vital exception though - court appointments. That was why 2016 was so critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell you what the world would look like today if Sanders had one. But I do know one thing for certain. Trump would be holding rallies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I can't tell you what the world would look like today if Sanders had one. But I do know one thing for certain. Trump would be holding rallies.

He would be selling trump jerky while he pushed for an apprentice reboot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that Jimmy belonged to the centrist wing of the party (in some respects, foreshadowing Reagan-era deregulation). Bernie's a different kettle of fish.

Doesn't matter. My point was that Bernie seemed like a guy who woudln't have gotten much done while in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Doesn't matter. My point was that Bernie seemed like a guy who woudln't have gotten much done while in office.

There would have been some serious opposition to him lead by the Conservative wing the Republican party and there is the possibility that conservative  Democrats would not have been on board with him either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Anyway, to answer the question, nothing would be happening, due to congressional obstructionism. The one vital exception though - court appointments. That was why 2016 was so critical.

The nothing would also include not defunding the EPA and state department. And the US wouldn't be set to pull out of Paris. And then repubs would just be back to pushing through pointless Obamacare repeals with the cover of the veto.

It'd look pretty similar to a Clinton presidency on the domestic front imo.

Foreign policy would probably be more isolationist than Trump (or a hypothetical Clinton admin). No bombing Syria. Less sabre rattling with North Korea. Probably still would've pulled out of the TPP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0