Bernie Sanders should be the Democrat nominee
Debate Rounds (4)
This is the scene in contemporary politics, and never before has the future of the country been so important when electing a nominee in the Democrat party. Yet, millions of Democrat voters are voting the wrong way. Here is why they need to vote the right way.
I agree, interlocutor (I can already sense it), Sanders is indeed proposing a move to nationalised healthcare and subsidised universities. You will most likely say that these things are non-achievable, because to increase taxes is theft, it isn't fair to take hard earned money and give it to those who are too lazy to work for their own. Some sort of free-market individualist spiel anyway. My answer is this: I do not know if it is achievable or not, just like you don't. But that isn't what attracts me to Sanders in the first place.
What attracts me to Sanders is not his self-claimed Democratic Socialism. In fact he isn't even running on a platform of Democratic Socialism; Sanders is a Social Democrat undeniably. He really has shot himself in the foot by claiming he is a Socialist, when in reality he is not. There is a distinction between the two ideologies, I will explain in round 2 if my interlocutor does not seem to grasp the difference.
What attracts me to Sanders is this: he represents something that hasn't been seen in US politics since Franklin Roosevelt. He represents a force the USA needs. Let me begin by pointing out according to World Bank Data the USA is the most economically unequal out of the world's top 22 most developed nations; with 0.42 out of 1 on the GINI index. That is almost as economically unequal as Russia. And this income inequality is continuing to rise in the USA.
Why does this happen? Low taxation on the top tax bracket, absence of corporate tax payments, poor workers rights due to the smashing of unions since the 1980s (longer hours for less pay now), deregulation of markets, repeal of Glass-Steagal. Now you, my interlocutor may say this is completely fair, and that because the market is free the people are free and the ones that work the hardest rise to the top, and those who don't, sink. This is a blanket statement, and not completely fair.
"The ones who work the hardest" are those that acquire as much human capital as they can, so they can become employed in a better paying job, therefore make a higher wage and will become wealthy. Except, according to the proven Cycle of Poverty model, those who are poor lack the ability to get out of poverty because they lack connections or the ability to get a good education (because universities are only available to the middle and upper class in the USA due to their astronomical cost). The main cause of the Cycle of Poverty is low salary; as the MIT living wage gap model shows, many states have higher costs of living than the minimum wage can afford for. One can work as hard as one can, and still never become wealthy enough to look down at his fellow man and say "work harder".
So why do we need Sanders? Sanders is the only one willing to address this fundamental problem. He is a beacon in a world where individualism, and contempt for the poor has become the norm; as the saying goes "In the USA there are the conservatives and the all-most conservatives". Sanders represents a return to the time of FDR, when the aim of government was to develop the country for all, and to help all citizens, to provide each human with the freedom to live a comfortable life; not to be used as a tool to bury many in an early grave, and to give the few an excessively comfortable life.
Ironically the USA is majority a Christian country, ironic because Christianity centrally preaches a collectivist attitude, to help the poor and the sick. Yet it is infected with neoliberalism like a parasite.
Clinton on the other hand represents a continuation of the aforementioned; she is a candidate riddled with controversy (she may even be imprisoned). She will be a president that lasts for one term until the public become dissatisfied with her and vote Republican next election cycle, if she even wins.
Sanders represents a chance for the USA to fix its main problem; economic inequality, and in doing so the USA will become one of the most spectacular nations ever seen on planet Earth; a nation that helps its citizens in its time of need, and can produce effortlessly, that can act as the world's protector.
As inequality begins to rise, people will become discontent, and unless it is dealt with, a revolution, not as weak as the one Sanders is proposing (it is hardly a revolution), will occur. And when that happens the USA will regret not stepping in the right way, and will instead fall into instability.
Bernie is a nice guy. I like him as a politician. I voted for him in Ohio, I donated to his campaign and have a "Bernie" sicker on my car. I know his policies and support him. But it was clear to me right when he announced he was running: he would not win and he would be bad for the country. It seems that the pro side is a UK citizen but has good understanding of US politics. So I hope I hope he understands my view on my Sanders would not get anything done. Congress and our government as a whole has been divided by Republicans and Democrats. Spending bills always end with threats of shutting down the government. The whole political system hurts compromise. Sanders, for many Americans, is too far to the left for comfort. He lacks broad support of the public, and establishment republicans and democrats alike. If he wins the nomination, he will be representing a minority of voters and not the majority of democrats. If he wins the presidency, he will face a uncooperative Congress that will block all he wishes to do. Josh Quincy Adams, the 6th president, wanted reform and internal improvements of the nation. He wanted the betterment of everyone but was blocked at every turn by Democrats that were better from the Corrupt Bargain. Tyler, Johnson, Grant, Carter all shared the same fate of gridlock. Sanders could not get anything passed by Congress.
Clinton is the definition of establishment. She has connections and allies on both sides. She has experience as first lady, secretary of state, and Senator of New York. She can work across party lines to pass policy that pleases both sides. The president is suppose to represent the people. Sanders only represents the loudest voices just like Trump. If we want change, Clinton is the way to go. People know this. This is why she is winning.
"As I states in the comments, Mr. Sanders lacks establishment and broad support. He is trailing in the delegate count and mathematically cannot win. " This is correct, Sanders does lack "establishment support" (this is quite an unusual term for UK citizens as both our main parties are polar opposites, there is always a wide variety to vote for and therefore never any reference to the "establishment"), because he does not promote the normal politics of the USA, as my opponent points out "Sanders, for many Americans, is too far to the left for comfort". He is behind in the delegate count by just under 300 delegates, and while it is possible for him to win it is almost impossible in pragmatic terms.
But I will dispute that he lacks broad support. He does have the support of Democrats, just not all, but then again neither does Hillary. Sanders has far more support from independents that either Clinton or Trump; just take for example the events that occurred in New York when millions of independent voters were outraged (wrongfully) at the closed nature of the NY Primary, as they could not vote for Sanders. Sanders has carried 20 states out of the 43 that have had primaries so far; he does have support.
"The main point of the pro side is simply that all the voters are wrong. This is a statement holds no real backing besides opinion. " Not all voters, only the ones that do not vote for Sanders. This is most indefinitely an opinion.
"He would be bad for the country." how so?
"So I hope I hope he understands my view on my (sic) Sanders would not get anything done. " Perhaps not, "Congress and our government as a whole has been divided by Republicans and Democrats." But perhaps it is better to try and introduce good change and fail, rather than elect someone who will get "anything done", because what they might try to do is perhaps not what is right. You yourself even said it, you voted for Sanders because you like his ideas, even though you didn't think they would actually work out. You subscribe to the idea I have put forward that it is better to attempt to make good change and fail, than attempt to make change that isn't good and succeeding. And while you have listed several utopia driven politicians who succumbed to the forces of political deadlock, lets think about the most blaringly obvious example of a controversial president who did make change. Barack Obama rose to the presidency with some extremely controversial ideas in US politics; he was crowned a communist, the death of America and so on, yet he did not succumb to political deadlock. He went on to be, in my opinion one of the greatest US presidents in history. Why can Sanders not be the same?
"He lacks broad support of the public, and establishment republicans and democrats alike." I hate to bring this point up as i'm sure you have heard this a million times over; Sanders trounces Trump in the Presidential election polls, by quite large margins. He has carried 20 states out of 43, he has millions of donations, including from you. Thousands attend his rallies, and most Democrats believe he should stay in the primary race even though they aren't voting for him.
This brings me to what I said in round 1; he is a force the USA needs more than ever. While he is losing, and the majority of Democrats do not want him to be the nominee, that does not necessarily mean they are right. They may not like the force he represents, because people do not like change. He may be too far to the left for comfort, but because he isn't comfortable it doesn't mean he isn't right. "The president is suppose to represent the people.", exactly my point, he should represent the people, by being able to make the tough decisions no one else can make. The tough decision in this case is addressing the future problems the USA will face.
"If we want change, Clinton is the way to go. People know this. This is why she is winning." If you want a president who changes their mind every so often, or changes their story to win as many votes as possible, of course, vote for Clinton. She will bring change, but then again every president does. Any bill vetoed by the president or any decision or executive order by the president will make change. But the only candidate offering REAL change for the better is Sanders.
That is why he should be the democrat nominee, because he represents a change in political dynamic that the USA may not be comfortable with, but needs. He will not win the nomination, unless he convinces super delegates to change sides and choose him because he is the candidate that will do better in the presidential election, but he should win the nomination.
"The issue still stands that the mass part of the pro side's argument is opinion based. I speak from facts." You have said both of these things twice, and I have before stated that it is entirely opinion based. I cannot stress that enough; this entire argument is supposed to be about arguing opinion better than the other, something you seem to fail to grasp.
" "Winning" a state means nothing." Yes, it sort of does. It is the best indicator to show that a majority of Democrats in that state support Sanders, and winning 20 out 43 states that have held primaries shows that Sanders does have broad support from Democrats, and thats not even including the many many independent voters who want to vote for him.
"The difference is 2293 for Clinton and 1533 for Sanders. The difference shows that Sanders lacks broad support. " You seem to have factored in super-delegates, a mechanism that some states have moved to remove from their primaries. Super-delegates are far more fluid than you make it out to be. In reality the pledged delegate count stands at 1,728 to 1,494, not as wide a gap as you are proposing.
"The pro side sits upon a high horse that some how thinks he knows best beyond the general public. " I am going to assume that the pro-side would be outraged if all of a sudden the Fascist Party of America gained a majority of Congress seats in both the Senate and HoR, because even though the majority of people voted for them he would believe that the majority would be wrong and he would know better. Everyone thinks they know better than anyone else when it comes to discussion of politics, and I am no different, just as you are.
"The system is in place and Clinton is winning fair and square. She has the most delegates and will reach 2383 needed soon and thus "should" be the democratic nomination." I'm disputing the fact that she is winning fairly, and I am not disputing the fact that she will get the democratic nomination; I am not suggesting we throw democracy into a grave and just chose Sanders, what I am trying to suggest is that perhaps Sanders would be a better nomination, even though he probably won't get it. It seems you have misinterpreted the motion of the debate, and when I gave you an unsatisfactory answer you became offended and took up the debate to try and prove a point. Incredibly petty and a waste of my time.
Again, I say this in the comments, the motion makes perfect sense; he should be the nomination because in my opinion he is the better candidate. It boils down to Hillary vs. Sanders, or was supposed to. You even understood what I mean by my motion suggesting an alternative, and when I rejected it you decided to be petty and take up the debate to prove a point.
"I do not see why we must assume that the majority of voters are wrong instead of the alternative: you are wrong." Again sir, this is entirely opinion based. It was supposed to be, and you are arguing a point without addressing anything I have said previously.
"The stance to elect someone to have nothing done is not "good." " Exactly my point. That is what you are going to get with a Clinton presidency. Sanders on the other hand will try to introduce change, and will most likely succeed like Obama has. Not all his policies will be implemented, of course.
"Clinton has one of the most impressive resumes in presidential history" What is it then?
"She shares many beliefs as our current president" Except when she started calling herself a progressive on the primary trail, and when she criticized Obama back in 2008 on the primary trail too. And now she can;t voice her true opinions due to the collective responsibility dimension of the cabinet.
" While Sanders has criticized Obama on several occasions." Some evidence please.
Also, Obama had to work with democratically controlled Congress. Over his administration, politics has polarized and the next president needs to be able to work with both sides." Except that there will be a Congress election this year, and due to the farce the Republicans have made of themselves in Congress, it is likely this year the Democrats may come out with a majority instead of the Republicans.
"Clinton...shares many of Sanders views but moderates them." Does she? According to you she shared many of her views with Obama, who was criticized by Sanders on many occasions, suggesting that his views are not the same as Obama's. So who is it she shares most of her views with? What views does she share with both of them?
"Sanders is a legislator." Anyone seriously running for president always will be. Clinton is a legislator (although not a terribly good one),Obama was a legislator, etc.
"Keep him in Congress where he can do some good." He can do good in any position he takes.
"The presidency is not for him." Not this election cycle, but I am not disputing that. I am saying that He WOULD do better as the nominee than Clinton which is, as you never fail to point out despite the fact I already have, it is my opinion.
The pro side also wants to move delegates around to suit his argument. Super delegates are a way for the establishment to have a say in the election. The current standing still shows Sanders lacking support from that establishment and the general public. I like Bernie, I do, but I like democracy more; and the democratic system that is in place is saying Clinton is going to win and thus "should" win.
A Sanders presidency will have to face angry Republicans hell-bent on burning his legacy to the ground. Sanders does not have the luxury like Obama of democrats controlling Congress. Even if democrats take control of a house, Sanders lacks their support too. Clinton has been first lady, senator, and Sec. of State. That last one is a biggie because she knows the world leaders already and how to work with them. Sanders fails on foreign policy issues like most socialist. Sanders has said himself on the debate stage he openly criticized President Obama on our actions in the Middle East.
In an October interview with MSNBC, he said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden "have done a damn good job," but that America needs "a course correction."
In another MSNBC interview, Sanders suggested Obama has failed in closing "the huge gap" between Americans and Congress.
He has said a lot on Obama and how he has failed liberals and progressives.
Free College - College for All Act
It sounds nice but even this savor like figure is lying to you. His plan does not really offer free college. It attempts to lower the price by getting the state and fed to work together on spending. It is close to the Affordable Care Act in that case, however, it is less generous and expects states to pay for a lot of the cost. Even if democrats take control of Congress, they are not taking all governorship positions. States have refused the medicare funding from the ACA and will block the CFA just the same.
Wealth/income inequality - more taxes on rich
Again, sounds nice to the middle class but still fails when it meats real life. Higher tax rates on individuals and corporations is the reason for them keeping funds overseas. That money could come in the US to stimulate the economy but current policies go against this. Sanders will only make this issue worse...the rich that we demand to pay more will simply leave and now we get none of that money.
Min wage increase - 15$
To be honest, this is laughable. A increase that large on the Federal level will have devastating cost to our economy, and is not really needed on the Federal level. He also wants to spend billions to "help" the youth employment. Raising the min wage hurts black and youth Americans the most.
Trade policies - isolationism
He pretty much wants to do away with all major resent trade deals and go back to a more isolated time. Like many socialist, trade is a weak spot. He uses these deals as scapegoats for problems without understanding the point of trade and fails to grasp classical economic theory.
He wants to expand social security, medicare and medicaid. He fails to explain how to pay for all this policies and just says the rich will pay for it. I agree we need change but Sanders is asking for too much too fast and will hurt the country when we lose all our tax dollars. The 1% pays for almost all of the income tax revenue already.
I can go on and on about is ridiculous polices. I understand the appeal. He hits a nerve for many Americans that want change. But we need to be careful about how we do things. Clinton's polices are still progressiveness to a moderate degree and have a higher chance of passing congress.
"The population of the states he wins are usually small in comparison to the one Clinton wins." Are they? Washington state has a population of over 7,000,000 while the population of Nevada is around 2,000,000. Minnesota has a population of 5,000,000 while South Carolina has a population of 4,000,000. I could go all day here selecting states Sanders won with massive populations and compare them to states Clinton won with small populations. Its a terrible way to measure "support", by state population. Unless you provide evidence of a trend I am going to discount this point.
"The pro side is trying to use this 20 out 43 states as a indicator of success while these states are all different and are not equal." I am using it as an indicator, but not of success, as an indicator that Sanders does have support within the Democrat party, which he does (10 million votes).
"Winning Iowa means practically nothing in the grand scheme of the election." I agree, but Hillary won Iowa. Iowa is often an indicator to see how successful each candidate will be throughout the course of the election, however, so to say the result means nothing is incorrect.
"That is the case for many states that Bernie has won." What states in particular?
"I would also add that the results do include some independent. If the primary is "open," than independents can vote; and in the states that had open primaries, Clinton wins all the same." Did she? New Hampshire is an open primary state. Vermont is an open primary state. Wisconsin is an open primary state. Oklahoma is an open primary state. Michigan is an open primary state. Indiana is an open primary state, to name a few. So she doesn't win them "all the same". And because Sanders can win closed primary states, it is a pretty big indicator that he is supported by the majority of Democrats in the states he won.
"The pro side also wants to move delegates around to suit his argument." The same could be said of you, seeing as the chairwoman of the DNC explicitly said the media should not include super-delegates in the delegate counts.
"The current standing still shows Sanders lacking support from that establishment and the general public." Of course he lacks support from the establishment; i'm fairly sure we covered why a couple of rounds ago. As I have proven several times over he does have support from many Democrats and many independents (not the general public, but none of the candidates could ever hope to have the support of the general public in the primary season.
"I like Bernie, I do, but I like democracy more; and the democratic system that is in place is saying Clinton is going to win and thus "should" win." Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton, and thus, "should win". Prove to me that Sanders is not a better candidate than Clinton.
"A Sanders presidency will have to face angry Republicans hell-bent on burning his legacy to the ground." That didn't stop you from voting in Obama did it? Why should that apply here?
"Sanders does not have the luxury like Obama of democrats controlling Congress." Obama doesn't have the luxury of a Democrat controlled Congress. Sanders may do, we cannot say until the 2016 Congressional elections.
"Even if democrats take control of a house, Sanders lacks their support too." You really cannot shake off this Sanders has no support thing can you? I'm not going to waste time addressing this anymore, its farcical to be fully honest with you.
"Sanders fails on foreign policy issues like most socialist (sic)." Fails? What does that mean? And thats an extremely broad statement; "like most socialist (sic)". And if I recall correctly Clinton voted in favour of the Iraq War which was a complete and utter catastrophe that has helped destabilize the region. She lied about her visit to Bosnia, she is responsible for the only death of an American diplomat since 1979 due to her ineptitude to carry out her job.
"He has said a lot on Obama and how he has failed liberals and progressives." Infuriatingly I thought you would have realised he is probably the first person to say this, seeing as he is a figurehead in the American left.
"Free College - College for All Act
It sounds nice but even this savor(sic) like figure is lying to you... It attempts to lower the price by getting the state and fed to work together on spending. It is close to the Affordable Care Act in that case, however, it is less generous and expects states to pay for a lot of the cost... States have refused the medicare funding from the ACA and will block the CFA just the same." If I was offered the option of reduced fees of US universities I would still take it. It is a step in the right direction just like the ACA. And while states may have refused medicare funding from the ACA over 32 million people can now afford healthcare. If the same happened with Bernie's proposal for universities that would be a major success in US Development.
"Again, sounds nice to the middle class but still fails when it meats(sic) real life." Around 70%-80% of the USA is considered middle class according to your census bureau; you would do well to focus on policies benefiting the middle class.
"Higher tax rates on individuals and corporations is the reason for them keeping funds overseas." Not higher taxes, taxes in general. The tax rate for the top bracket in the USA is 39.9%; incredibly low compared to other developed nations (the UK has 45% for example).
"That money could come in the US to stimulate the economy but current policies go against this. Sanders will only make this issue worse...the rich that we demand to pay more will simply leave and now we get none of that money." That money could come into the US economy, but lowering taxes isn't going to make the rich move money from offshore bank accounts where tax is 12.5% to the USA where tax rates are 39.9%.
"To be honest, this is laughable. A increase that large on the Federal level will have devastating cost to our economy" How so?
"He also wants to spend billions to "help" the youth employment. Raising the min wage hurts black and youth Americans the most." How so? In fact raising the minimum wage would move low wage workers closer to the cost of living in their respective states, and would ease the strain on the welfare system in the US.
"Trade policies - isolationism" Isolationism is a foreign policy term, not an economic one. Therefore he cannot advocate "isolationist trade policy". While I get what you are trying to say, he isn't advocating a complete shut down in trade and a move to autarky. He is advocating a repeal of free trade deals, which do result in flight of manufacturing jobs (it has occurred in every major free trade block thus far).
"Like many socialist, trade is a weak spot. " Again a sweeping statement without evidence.
"fails (sic) to grasp classical economic theory." He doesn't however he does disagree with neoclassical economics.
"He wants to expand social security, medicare and medicaid. He fails to explain how to pay for all this policies and just says the rich will pay for it." He has a very extensive tax plan actually.
"The 1% pays for almost all of the income tax revenue already." I'm going to beg the question here, quite rightfully too.
Round 1, if you had bothered to read it, is my explanation of why Sanders>Clinton.
lyokowarri0r forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.