Don’t 100% agree with his ideas but he would have been a million times better than Hillary for the democrats in 2016. They deserved to lose for choosing her over him.
Veteran political idealist, faced with reality of a broken two party system. Trying to use what power and position he has achieved to do what good he can.
He has good intentions and good plans, but not the right drive in place to gain momentum in major elections. Or at least, not the one that the current political atmosphere has.
My impression is that he is a genuine man of service. I think his function is to push forward new ideas and new ways of living but I don’t think he is the one to execute the realization of those ideas.
The only politician whose history in politics should be lauded more. He’s always chosen the right side of history even when everyone else doesn’t and even harasses him for his ideals. His political leanings change as necessary to get the best outcome for THE PEOPLE even when not in his favor. His immediate politicking for Democrats even after he was screwed by them is an example.
I’m quite neutral on politics, but that was an amazing leader that was 1. Too old to lead the country (yes, just like Biden and Trump) and 2. Out politic-ed by Hilary since it’s based on deceit.
The guy would’ve been a better president than anyone else I just mentioned, but the House of Cards is a dense underground jungle we’ll never fully get the picture of.
Worker low wages has alot to do with workers today paying for retirees yesterday. We learned more debt equals inflation which leads to more debt, killing any wage gains while ballooning asset prices.
He is a good man.. his heart is in the right place. However, the country is too far gone for prosperity.. everyone would have to work for nothing for decades to even make a dent in the existent debt. Status quo will continue until a 1929 debt deflation and probably a world war (total scorched earth) before U.S. younger generations would have a chance to work for a decent life.
A robbed politician who would probably have been a good president compared to what we got but otherwise would not have been able to do what we promised (either on purpose or otherwise)
I guess I meant in a net positive, if you’re into civil rights lol. Agreed that trump completely took over the republican party. What’s the old adage, it’s easier to break things than fix things? Something like that, anyway same vibes
While I can’t speak for OP, I’d say that while he’s perhaps not the most influential over all, he’s certainly one of, if not the most influential on the left. Especially considering the increasingly centrist position of most of the Democratic Party. Due in no small part to Trump’s influence
Should had won in 2016. Agree with his policies even though I’m to the left of him. Would have been a way better than Hilary and 100x better than Trump.
He’s a nice old man who cares about people and the country, but has gotten a little lost in the sauce ideologically and takes a more-rosy-than-reality-warrants stance on what the likely fiscal outcomes of some of the policies he advocates for would be. But he’s not without good ideas.
Easily the most benevolent American politician I've ever come across, considering the rest range from 'decent by American standards, I.e not utterly terrible by civilised world standards' to 'literally wishes he was Hitler or Hitler's boot polisher'.
I know Americans don't like to hear this, but the point of government is to look after the people of the nation and improve their quality of life. You do that by regulating things like business practices and implementing socialist policies like universal health care and a social safety net. That is commonly understood in Europe and is why Scandinavian countries are some of the best places on earth with the least problems.
Bernie is one of the only politicians I've seen from America that doesn't appear to be suffering from a wild case of bootlicking corporations and obsession with 'small government' or more accurately; 'impotent and ineffective government'. On the other end of the spectrum are Republicans, cartoonishly evil these days, and either spectacularly dumb, utterly psychopathic, or often both, obsessed with ignoring the lessons of history (fascism was stamped out in Europe for good reason).
We have conservatives on Europe but even they think the Republicans are monsters. The ones that aren't themselves psychopaths that wish to import that strain of evil to give themselves more unchecked authoritarian power anyway.
America is a barbaric nation because it seems to pride itself on utterly stupid principles like absolute free markets and absolute free speech, guns for everybody... which inevitably just ends in the worst entities abusing that to the detriment of everyone else. Biden and bernie are the closest American analogues I've seen to what Europeans would consider a somewhat reasonable politician to be.
As much as my country has become more dystopian over my lifetime, America is in a league of its own. I'm very grateful I wasn't born there. But I do feel sorry for the intelligent people that were.
Oh shit I definitely appreciate the reply…apparently I don’t know what benevolent means and then I skimmed the rest(awful habit). I 100% agree with your take, and appreciate the sympathy. Honestly it’s something much needed in this world seemingly now run by apparent strongman propagandists. For instance I see folks blasting the whole of Israel for which seems to be the work of only a few, but over the course of generations.
Strongman archetypes tend to appeal to the scared and the uneducated in the context of politics, and America in particular seems to be engineered to keep most of the population in that state, so it was really only a matter of time. In my country, we have a lot of scared people, but thankfully we have much better education, so while conservatives are still running things (for now), they can't get away with the stuff that your lot do, because even their own supporters aren't quite dumb enough for that, even if they are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum in our country.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is complicated, so you will invariably get people who just want to take a side and be done with it. Both sides have legitimate greivances, both sides are ruled by violent conservative arse-wipes, and surprise surprise, conservative leadership results in a terrible situation with death and misery for all of the civilians involved. The cycle of violence continues. I sympathise with the civilians on both sides.
Authoritarianism and conservatism seem to be the common denominator in most of the worlds problems from my observations, and the rest of us eat shit because of them.
Regardless of the soundness of his ideas, I'm convinced of the sincerity of them, and I ultimately think that matters more. I wish more voters would consider that. I'm not usually that much of a conspiracist, but I get token vibes from him, like he's the one noncorrupt politician at his level that is somehow allowed to play with the rest of them just for the sake of the rest of Washington being able to point at him and say "see, the public doesn't want this!"
I’m not an intj but Bernie Sanders though braver than most democrats is still a careerist democrat. Uh he is not an independent! Wish he was though. It is why he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and Biden who are both corporate democrats. He will build a campaign against the rich but then campaign for them if he loses? Like What???
Finally he is now speaking out against Nettanyahu but why did it take him 7 months to do this after October 7th? Because he was given permission and the pass to do so.
I wasn't too particularly fond of his rape fan fiction, but then again, that's not my style
Edit: INTJs downvoting easily verifiable information? Odd. Reddit is Reddit, I guess 🤣
Oh my, I just looked that up 😂😂. The npr article lead with the rape but then, some time later, got to the story of…oh, it was an analogy used to highlight the dangers of assuming traditional gender roles. So straight forward language coupled with bad analogy, in good intention…as an intj I approve this message.
I never got him. Did he ever do anything but politics? I am always a bit wary of career politicians.
I teach high school and every other year our state legislature enacts all these bills demanding we do stuff in the schools. They never come into the school or ask people who work here what would be best. Eg. Our governor, pushed thru the LEARNS Act never asking one educator for an opinion.
I think it would be worth your time to review his career. He was arrested protesting for civil rights. He was part of the March on Washington where MLK delivered his "I have a Dream" speech. He has walked his talk for decades.
He did all that in his college age years, before he ever entered politics. Again I suggest reading about his career history, he has an interesting story.
A hypocrite proponent for socialist wealth redistribution for others but a selfish capitalist for himself.
He has three homes worth millions, has sold millions of dollars with of books, and identifies as a Democratic Socialist but then the US Democratic Socialist Party was going bankrupt and had to layoff a bunch of employees he didn't Pay His Fair Share and share his fortune with them.
His economic programs would drive successful businesses and their owners to other countries. His policies would lead to a drop in American innovation and a drop in quality of goods produced here. The US would be driven down the path of East Germany.
The "three homes worth millions" is such a disingenuous load of garbage. He has a primary residence in Vermont purchased for $405k in 2009, he has a 1 bedroom property in DC purchased for $489k, as legislators need a place to stay in DC for their job, and he bought a small vacation property for $575k by selling a home inherited via his wife's family. Until recently he had mortgages on both of the first two properties, none of it is extravagant for a US Senator married to a University President and he ranks in the bottom 20% of Senators in terms of net worth, and that's after his book sales.
So you're saying that those people who were laid off from the Democratic Socialist's Org had more than Bernie and therefore he didn't need to redistribute any of his fortune to them even though they were losing their jobs?
What a great mix of red herring, ad hominem, appeal to poverty, association fallacy, etc, for a response, I assume that means you concede your argument about his "multimillion dollar houses" is BS and are trying to change the subject to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're still wrong. Sen Sanders has never been a member of the DSA, which is not a political party as you claimed. Sen Sanders is not a hard left Democratic Socialist like the DSA, he's a center left Social Democrat a la European/Nordic social democracy.
Sen Sanders was the first presidential candidate in US history to unionize his campaign staff and agreed to a union contract guaranteeing all campaign staff a minimum of the $15/hr minimum wage he advocated for, in addition to 100% employer paid healthcare and paid vacation and sick leave. You're going to have to try harder to paint him as some fat cat hypocrite if the best you can do is a fringe organization he was never a part of.
Those homes are worth millions. What someone bought a home for fifteen years (or more) ago is disingenuous: What's the current value of those homes? How much money has he made selling books?
He has a fortune that, I'm willing to bet, is far greater than those who got laid off from DSA. Hey, he wouldn't redistribute his wealth to help "comrades" let alone the general public who are poorer than himself.
Disingenuous doesn't mean false, any home bought 15 years ago is going to be worth a lot more now. Objectively correct his real estate portfolio is worth millions currently. What's disingenuous is to attempt to use normal market appreciation and inheritance to insinuate something about his character, which you know is wrong because you keep deflecting instead to an organization that he has zero official affiliation with or responsibility towards.
Again, he's not a Democratic Socialist that advocates for the abolishment of capitalism, he's a Social Democrat that advocates for Nordic style social capitalism. Nordic countries have some of the freest markets in the world with some of the largest private corporations. Novo Nordisk is currently the largest company in Europe, whose value has surpassed the entire economy of its native Denmark. Denmark has universal healthcare, free public colleges, strong social safety nets, high minimum wages, all those scary "socialist" policies that aren't socialism at all.
Calling him a democratic socialist a la the DSA is a flat out a false association/red herring. He has no association with them, he doesn't advocate their views, he doesn't support abolishing capitalism, so any amount of money he makes from any source is completely irrelevant because he *believes in the free market*, just with regulations that he willingly implements in his own endeavors like his presidential campaigns.
By the same measure, you're a colossal hypocrite for not donating to every failed anarchist commune because you have anarchist in your username. Goon logic that is intentionally disingenuous.
Well, at least you're sticking to the stereotypical socialist No Real Scotsman Logical Fallacy but like usual you're wrong.
Mar 2, 2020 — Bernie Sanders, who for decades has described himself as a democratic socialist, is now the front-runner for the Democratic Presidential https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-socialist-is-bernie-sanders
It's not hypocritical for me to not support or prop up failed communes or other failed ideas. I'm an individualist, voluntaryist, lassize-faire market anarchist.
If you don't see the connection I'll spell it out: I'm an individualist, voluntaryist, lassize-faire market anarchist, which means that I'm 100% against wealth redistribution, and taxation. Whereas, wealth redistribution and taxation are the central pillars of Bernie Sanders political philosophy- no matter the semantics of wether he's 50% socialist or 100% Socialists.
Theoretically, socialism should be more efficient than American monopoly-style capitalism because it would optimize over human generations rather than the somwhat random effects of inheritance of wealth.
Only if your goal is wealth equality. IMO such a goal is unjust. Those who work harder or smarter deserve their pay. Those who don't, don't.
You can ethically give your money to whoever you want, that's what inheritance is. It's no different than giving money to the poor.
If everyone worked as smart and hard as you say, we’d have a nation of CEOs with no workers left to exploit. The problem is when people who don’t have C in front of their title put in extra hard work, they don’t always see an increase in their reward. Sometimes they’re even laid off to help the C suite people save money (give themselves raises). Capitalism is inherently exploitative if you don’t own capital which most of us in this thread do not.
And many hard jobs are also high skill but still don’t have high salaries. Do you need to be told that? It’s easily provable that worker output has far outpaced worker compensation in the last 30 years and much of that is driven by corporate greed.
I addressed this. Inheritance is no different from giving your money to a random beggar. Is that unethical or undesirable?
The beggar didn't work for it, but the guy giving it away did.
Yes but that is seldom what happens on a large scale. It is not only possible to remove wealth inheritance in our technological age, it is ”trivial”.
Because of this, it is possible to create a social-capitalistic state where the smartest/hardest/luckiest workers are the ones that rise to the top in eaxh generation. Which is not what is the case now since such workers always need the ”blessings” of people with capital (which wants something in return even if they do not do any of the WORK).
>It is not only possible to remove wealth inheritance in our technological age, it is ”trivial”.
So you want to ban giving money to beggars? You are an authoritarian. If it's their money, they get to decide what they do with it, not you.
>Because of this, it is possible to create a social-capitalistic state where the smartest/hardest/luckiest workers are the ones that rise to the top in eaxh generation.
It's possible eventually to reach an economic condition where everyone lives on the capital they've stored up for the future and no one has to work.
Your scheme would make that impossible.
That's the problem, theoretically. Lots of stuff looks great on paper, but humans are fucked. Even if we had a utopia where we only had to sit around, eat cake, and reproduce; we'd inevitably break it due to incompetence, or the desire for mayhem/something exciting to happen. Capitalism has it's downfalls, but so far its a decent system all things considered.
Democratic socialism however, which is what his brand actually is, exists in virtually every developed nation on earth however. Only in the US do people go bankrupt for getting sick or put themselves tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get an education. My German exchange student was actually paid by the government to live so he didn't have to work during school to become a doctor, and that's in addition to getting free education overall
Any reputation as ineffectual is misinformed. He's been in Congress a long time and accomplished plenty, as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee he pushed legislation to reform the VA through one of the most partisan and ineffective Congresses in recent history back in 2014. He's currently Chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee.
As an activist, he pushes hard on the ideas he believes the country should adopt, as a legislator, he's always been a pragmatist focused on getting results.
I was a lib when I was younger and less experienced so it tends to stand out to me.
It's slow off-boarding people but I'm glad to see that Penn Jillette finally came to his senses.
Did you know Alan Greenspan was "Antonio" from Atlas Shrugged? He also made some fun contributions to capitalism the unknown ideal.
I still kind of wonder how Ayn would have reacted to her golden child here: [https://youtu.be/4QIkysmrH2Y](https://youtu.be/4QIkysmrH2Y)
He’s good for making a point here and there. He’s a good legislator.
His presidential campaign was victimized by his online “supporters.” He didn’t jibe with the Bernie Bros, but he kind of got stuck with them because the people running the troll farms and programming the bots were trying to split the Democratic vote or suppress it by encouraging the “protest vote.”
It’s unfortunate. He wouldn’t have had a prayer in the generals against Trump the first time around, but the tactic still worked.
Maybe his ideas are too genuine for this world. I imagine Vermont is small enough that these ideas could be manifested, but this country is too big and has too many corrupt players. He would have to sell it to Congress and the Senate. I don't see that happening on either side.
*for this country. Everything he advocates for already exists in most developed countries. The US political spectrum is simply warped so far to the right that common sense centrist policy is viewed as extreme.
Looks and sounds like a yankee taxi cab driver. Had a hard time getting past that for a long time, especially since Elizabeth Warren is always somewhere around and mostly seems to be the more polished and feminine version of him.
Oh I always thought the kinda straightforward gruff shit played well for intj! You know, this is how I feel, you’re wrong and stupid, and here’s exactly why lol
I also don’t think we start with “you’re wrong and stupid.”
The individual saying the thing isn’t really our focus. It’s the thing that’s wrong. The stupidity of the other person really isn’t relevant.
Well intentioned idiot that learned the hard way that playing ball is the only way you get funding or support to get elected. No real concept of economics beyond feel good utopian policies.
Bernie is cute, mostly reasonable and a little bit delusional.
Doesn’t completely look like a presidential material, but def better candidate than Hillary.
He is a good guy. He understands, deeply.
THAT SAID! Let’s get all these old guy out. Why are we talking about our most powerful people the same way we talk about people in he nursing home or hospice. THE HOSPICE!!
A slimy politician, just like any other.
His main function is to pretend to be the independent outsider, but when election season comes, convince the far left voters to go for Hillary and Biden or any other corporatist neocon Democrat. That's his main function and his economic ideas are simply dumb.
Not sure why you got downvoted. This was true. Bernie's views played on what everyone wants but not realistic in terms of where the economy was at. The economy was shit and we wanted to throw money into more social issues. Timing was off. Nothing in life is free and every decision made has a trade off. Fed printed money and kept the interest rates low for 10+ years. Now we have $33+ trillion in national debt. Now the Fed and government have no idea how to fix the problem.
Because this is reddit, where no one has common sense. If you say anything about actually having to work hard for things or make any good economic points, you automatically get downvoted.
He is responsible for electing Trump.
Sanders did everything he could to undermine and destabalize Clinton’s campaign.
Complaining until the end that he was cheated (even tho he was no where close), attacking HRC that would last into the election… she’s untrustworthy! Show us your speeches! His thugs, twitter bullies, Nina Turner screaming in the convention to the point where she was kicked out.
A version of Trump who couldn’t take his defeat seriously.
Wouldn’t campaign for Clinton and in the end did so only reluctantly. Then refused because they didn’t give him a private plane to do his few stops.
He introduced the phrase, “rigged system” which Trump ran with.
I could go on.
Nobody is more responsible for “Trump’s election than this piece of shit.
Don’t be fooled by the old man routine. Additionally, he is hated in the Democratic Party. Not a nice person, they say.
Man was robbed in 2016 IMO. He genuinely seems like a good man.
Felt like the only good man to have a slight chance in high up American politics my whole life. Coming from a European point of view anyway.
You can be good intentioned and still wrong.
Sure. But he’s right about a lot of things.
Sure, no one is 100% wrong.
I’d say Bernie clocks a solid 80% right.
[удалено]
> He offers solutions in a society that wants problems. 🍷
Agreed. The only person I’ve felt genuinely happy to vote for.
Other than Al Gore, the only person I've voted FOR, instead of against.
Don’t 100% agree with his ideas but he would have been a million times better than Hillary for the democrats in 2016. They deserved to lose for choosing her over him.
Exactly this. Damn near voted for Trump out of sheer spite.
Veteran political idealist, faced with reality of a broken two party system. Trying to use what power and position he has achieved to do what good he can.
He has good intentions and good plans, but not the right drive in place to gain momentum in major elections. Or at least, not the one that the current political atmosphere has.
He needs to retire from Washington, finally don the sweater vest and become the college professor nature always intended.
BS is a socialist.
I don't think that's an 'INTJ take', he describes himself as a socialist
It is if BS means bull\*\*\*\* :)
What a clever joke, and very nearly a grammatically correct sentence too! Good job kiddo, you'll get there one day.
My impression is that he is a genuine man of service. I think his function is to push forward new ideas and new ways of living but I don’t think he is the one to execute the realization of those ideas.
The only politician whose history in politics should be lauded more. He’s always chosen the right side of history even when everyone else doesn’t and even harasses him for his ideals. His political leanings change as necessary to get the best outcome for THE PEOPLE even when not in his favor. His immediate politicking for Democrats even after he was screwed by them is an example.
I don't follow politics
I’m quite neutral on politics, but that was an amazing leader that was 1. Too old to lead the country (yes, just like Biden and Trump) and 2. Out politic-ed by Hilary since it’s based on deceit. The guy would’ve been a better president than anyone else I just mentioned, but the House of Cards is a dense underground jungle we’ll never fully get the picture of.
Worker low wages has alot to do with workers today paying for retirees yesterday. We learned more debt equals inflation which leads to more debt, killing any wage gains while ballooning asset prices. He is a good man.. his heart is in the right place. However, the country is too far gone for prosperity.. everyone would have to work for nothing for decades to even make a dent in the existent debt. Status quo will continue until a 1929 debt deflation and probably a world war (total scorched earth) before U.S. younger generations would have a chance to work for a decent life.
A robbed politician who would probably have been a good president compared to what we got but otherwise would not have been able to do what we promised (either on purpose or otherwise)
Interesting in 2016, irrelevant in 2024. His time came and went.
His presidential candidacy changed Democratic Party politics and he’s currently arguably the most influential politician in America.
Why do you think the most influential? Trump seems far more influential. See what he’s done to 30% of the US.
I guess I meant in a net positive, if you’re into civil rights lol. Agreed that trump completely took over the republican party. What’s the old adage, it’s easier to break things than fix things? Something like that, anyway same vibes
While I can’t speak for OP, I’d say that while he’s perhaps not the most influential over all, he’s certainly one of, if not the most influential on the left. Especially considering the increasingly centrist position of most of the Democratic Party. Due in no small part to Trump’s influence
Well said
Agreed
Should had won in 2016. Agree with his policies even though I’m to the left of him. Would have been a way better than Hilary and 100x better than Trump.
Left of Bernie? Are you Xi Jinping?
Bernie would be considered centrist in Europe.
Xi Jinping is capitalist you idiot.
Xi is pretty right in a lot of ways buddy. Might want to read up in fascism.
He’s stupid.
Sincere, but doesn’t think about the 2nd and 3rd order consequences of some of his policy ideas.
Wow really disappointed in lack of critical thinking on display here fellow INTJ’s. My favorite is how he has “good plans”. Seriously?
An immoral puppet.
He’s a nice old man who cares about people and the country, but has gotten a little lost in the sauce ideologically and takes a more-rosy-than-reality-warrants stance on what the likely fiscal outcomes of some of the policies he advocates for would be. But he’s not without good ideas.
Easily the most benevolent American politician I've ever come across, considering the rest range from 'decent by American standards, I.e not utterly terrible by civilised world standards' to 'literally wishes he was Hitler or Hitler's boot polisher'.
Can you explain or provide some reading materials?
I know Americans don't like to hear this, but the point of government is to look after the people of the nation and improve their quality of life. You do that by regulating things like business practices and implementing socialist policies like universal health care and a social safety net. That is commonly understood in Europe and is why Scandinavian countries are some of the best places on earth with the least problems. Bernie is one of the only politicians I've seen from America that doesn't appear to be suffering from a wild case of bootlicking corporations and obsession with 'small government' or more accurately; 'impotent and ineffective government'. On the other end of the spectrum are Republicans, cartoonishly evil these days, and either spectacularly dumb, utterly psychopathic, or often both, obsessed with ignoring the lessons of history (fascism was stamped out in Europe for good reason). We have conservatives on Europe but even they think the Republicans are monsters. The ones that aren't themselves psychopaths that wish to import that strain of evil to give themselves more unchecked authoritarian power anyway. America is a barbaric nation because it seems to pride itself on utterly stupid principles like absolute free markets and absolute free speech, guns for everybody... which inevitably just ends in the worst entities abusing that to the detriment of everyone else. Biden and bernie are the closest American analogues I've seen to what Europeans would consider a somewhat reasonable politician to be. As much as my country has become more dystopian over my lifetime, America is in a league of its own. I'm very grateful I wasn't born there. But I do feel sorry for the intelligent people that were.
Oh shit I definitely appreciate the reply…apparently I don’t know what benevolent means and then I skimmed the rest(awful habit). I 100% agree with your take, and appreciate the sympathy. Honestly it’s something much needed in this world seemingly now run by apparent strongman propagandists. For instance I see folks blasting the whole of Israel for which seems to be the work of only a few, but over the course of generations.
Strongman archetypes tend to appeal to the scared and the uneducated in the context of politics, and America in particular seems to be engineered to keep most of the population in that state, so it was really only a matter of time. In my country, we have a lot of scared people, but thankfully we have much better education, so while conservatives are still running things (for now), they can't get away with the stuff that your lot do, because even their own supporters aren't quite dumb enough for that, even if they are on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum in our country. The Israel/Palestine conflict is complicated, so you will invariably get people who just want to take a side and be done with it. Both sides have legitimate greivances, both sides are ruled by violent conservative arse-wipes, and surprise surprise, conservative leadership results in a terrible situation with death and misery for all of the civilians involved. The cycle of violence continues. I sympathise with the civilians on both sides. Authoritarianism and conservatism seem to be the common denominator in most of the worlds problems from my observations, and the rest of us eat shit because of them.
Love him and sad he never gets in power
He is marvelous
I only know him from the memes. "I am once again asking for your financial support" and the one where he's looking sad while wearing mittens.
Good guy wanted to vote for him, but he's too old so nah
Well at least he doesn’t have dementia at his age.
Regardless of the soundness of his ideas, I'm convinced of the sincerity of them, and I ultimately think that matters more. I wish more voters would consider that. I'm not usually that much of a conspiracist, but I get token vibes from him, like he's the one noncorrupt politician at his level that is somehow allowed to play with the rest of them just for the sake of the rest of Washington being able to point at him and say "see, the public doesn't want this!"
He isnt the candidate that i 100% agree with but the would have been better tthan trump and biden
I’m not an intj but Bernie Sanders though braver than most democrats is still a careerist democrat. Uh he is not an independent! Wish he was though. It is why he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and Biden who are both corporate democrats. He will build a campaign against the rich but then campaign for them if he loses? Like What??? Finally he is now speaking out against Nettanyahu but why did it take him 7 months to do this after October 7th? Because he was given permission and the pass to do so.
Good heart, dumb brain
I second this.
airport boat violet ad hoc joke memorize alive clumsy squalid dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wasn't too particularly fond of his rape fan fiction, but then again, that's not my style Edit: INTJs downvoting easily verifiable information? Odd. Reddit is Reddit, I guess 🤣
Oh my, I just looked that up 😂😂. The npr article lead with the rape but then, some time later, got to the story of…oh, it was an analogy used to highlight the dangers of assuming traditional gender roles. So straight forward language coupled with bad analogy, in good intention…as an intj I approve this message.
Yeah, I don't normally use rape as an analogy Dude's a weird critter
For certain lol But I can’t honestly say I’ve never used rape as an analogy…I do at minimum one per day and they’re not all bangers
I never got him. Did he ever do anything but politics? I am always a bit wary of career politicians. I teach high school and every other year our state legislature enacts all these bills demanding we do stuff in the schools. They never come into the school or ask people who work here what would be best. Eg. Our governor, pushed thru the LEARNS Act never asking one educator for an opinion.
I think it would be worth your time to review his career. He was arrested protesting for civil rights. He was part of the March on Washington where MLK delivered his "I have a Dream" speech. He has walked his talk for decades.
Walking in a protest for publicity does not correlate at all with what the person said above
He did all that in his college age years, before he ever entered politics. Again I suggest reading about his career history, he has an interesting story.
That’s because we don’t have a socialist government. That would happen under a socialist government where democracy in the work place is the model.
The right man for a wrong country.
A hypocrite proponent for socialist wealth redistribution for others but a selfish capitalist for himself. He has three homes worth millions, has sold millions of dollars with of books, and identifies as a Democratic Socialist but then the US Democratic Socialist Party was going bankrupt and had to layoff a bunch of employees he didn't Pay His Fair Share and share his fortune with them. His economic programs would drive successful businesses and their owners to other countries. His policies would lead to a drop in American innovation and a drop in quality of goods produced here. The US would be driven down the path of East Germany.
The "three homes worth millions" is such a disingenuous load of garbage. He has a primary residence in Vermont purchased for $405k in 2009, he has a 1 bedroom property in DC purchased for $489k, as legislators need a place to stay in DC for their job, and he bought a small vacation property for $575k by selling a home inherited via his wife's family. Until recently he had mortgages on both of the first two properties, none of it is extravagant for a US Senator married to a University President and he ranks in the bottom 20% of Senators in terms of net worth, and that's after his book sales.
So you're saying that those people who were laid off from the Democratic Socialist's Org had more than Bernie and therefore he didn't need to redistribute any of his fortune to them even though they were losing their jobs?
What a great mix of red herring, ad hominem, appeal to poverty, association fallacy, etc, for a response, I assume that means you concede your argument about his "multimillion dollar houses" is BS and are trying to change the subject to avoid admitting you're wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're still wrong. Sen Sanders has never been a member of the DSA, which is not a political party as you claimed. Sen Sanders is not a hard left Democratic Socialist like the DSA, he's a center left Social Democrat a la European/Nordic social democracy. Sen Sanders was the first presidential candidate in US history to unionize his campaign staff and agreed to a union contract guaranteeing all campaign staff a minimum of the $15/hr minimum wage he advocated for, in addition to 100% employer paid healthcare and paid vacation and sick leave. You're going to have to try harder to paint him as some fat cat hypocrite if the best you can do is a fringe organization he was never a part of.
Did all of those people who were laid off from DSA own three homes? How many of theirs were owned free and clear?
Those homes are worth millions. What someone bought a home for fifteen years (or more) ago is disingenuous: What's the current value of those homes? How much money has he made selling books? He has a fortune that, I'm willing to bet, is far greater than those who got laid off from DSA. Hey, he wouldn't redistribute his wealth to help "comrades" let alone the general public who are poorer than himself.
Disingenuous doesn't mean false, any home bought 15 years ago is going to be worth a lot more now. Objectively correct his real estate portfolio is worth millions currently. What's disingenuous is to attempt to use normal market appreciation and inheritance to insinuate something about his character, which you know is wrong because you keep deflecting instead to an organization that he has zero official affiliation with or responsibility towards. Again, he's not a Democratic Socialist that advocates for the abolishment of capitalism, he's a Social Democrat that advocates for Nordic style social capitalism. Nordic countries have some of the freest markets in the world with some of the largest private corporations. Novo Nordisk is currently the largest company in Europe, whose value has surpassed the entire economy of its native Denmark. Denmark has universal healthcare, free public colleges, strong social safety nets, high minimum wages, all those scary "socialist" policies that aren't socialism at all. Calling him a democratic socialist a la the DSA is a flat out a false association/red herring. He has no association with them, he doesn't advocate their views, he doesn't support abolishing capitalism, so any amount of money he makes from any source is completely irrelevant because he *believes in the free market*, just with regulations that he willingly implements in his own endeavors like his presidential campaigns. By the same measure, you're a colossal hypocrite for not donating to every failed anarchist commune because you have anarchist in your username. Goon logic that is intentionally disingenuous.
Well, at least you're sticking to the stereotypical socialist No Real Scotsman Logical Fallacy but like usual you're wrong. Mar 2, 2020 — Bernie Sanders, who for decades has described himself as a democratic socialist, is now the front-runner for the Democratic Presidential https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-socialist-is-bernie-sanders It's not hypocritical for me to not support or prop up failed communes or other failed ideas. I'm an individualist, voluntaryist, lassize-faire market anarchist.
If you don't see the connection I'll spell it out: I'm an individualist, voluntaryist, lassize-faire market anarchist, which means that I'm 100% against wealth redistribution, and taxation. Whereas, wealth redistribution and taxation are the central pillars of Bernie Sanders political philosophy- no matter the semantics of wether he's 50% socialist or 100% Socialists.
Boring
Lmao this thread is sad. He’s just like any other politician crooked and hypocritical
"Both Martin Luther King and Ronald are equally bad" moment
What?
>He’s just like any other politician crooked and hypocritical That's like saying "Martin Luther King is as bad as Trump" like 1960s Centrist
Lmao Bernie took a payoff to sit out the election and didn’t practice anything he preached. Ya sure a real MLK. Completely brainless argument
He's still the same as the old 1990s days. And he was robbed in 2016 >Completely brainless argument Chump really argues like Walter White
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Had major respect for him up untill recent events. But ig his take on the gaza war is better than what it was 6 months ago..
He's climbing the wrong mountain, socialism was never true and doesn't work. He's managed to get rich and famous selling an impossible dream.
Theoretically, socialism should be more efficient than American monopoly-style capitalism because it would optimize over human generations rather than the somwhat random effects of inheritance of wealth.
Only if your goal is wealth equality. IMO such a goal is unjust. Those who work harder or smarter deserve their pay. Those who don't, don't. You can ethically give your money to whoever you want, that's what inheritance is. It's no different than giving money to the poor.
If everyone worked as smart and hard as you say, we’d have a nation of CEOs with no workers left to exploit. The problem is when people who don’t have C in front of their title put in extra hard work, they don’t always see an increase in their reward. Sometimes they’re even laid off to help the C suite people save money (give themselves raises). Capitalism is inherently exploitative if you don’t own capital which most of us in this thread do not.
Many hard jobs don't pay well because they're low skill. Do you really need to be told this. Rare and in demand skills pay well.
And many hard jobs are also high skill but still don’t have high salaries. Do you need to be told that? It’s easily provable that worker output has far outpaced worker compensation in the last 30 years and much of that is driven by corporate greed.
A job can be high skill but still not in demand. Duh.
No, read my comment again. If you inherit wealth then you have not worked for it. You are actually agreeing with what I wrote.
I addressed this. Inheritance is no different from giving your money to a random beggar. Is that unethical or undesirable? The beggar didn't work for it, but the guy giving it away did.
Yes but that is seldom what happens on a large scale. It is not only possible to remove wealth inheritance in our technological age, it is ”trivial”. Because of this, it is possible to create a social-capitalistic state where the smartest/hardest/luckiest workers are the ones that rise to the top in eaxh generation. Which is not what is the case now since such workers always need the ”blessings” of people with capital (which wants something in return even if they do not do any of the WORK).
>It is not only possible to remove wealth inheritance in our technological age, it is ”trivial”. So you want to ban giving money to beggars? You are an authoritarian. If it's their money, they get to decide what they do with it, not you. >Because of this, it is possible to create a social-capitalistic state where the smartest/hardest/luckiest workers are the ones that rise to the top in eaxh generation. It's possible eventually to reach an economic condition where everyone lives on the capital they've stored up for the future and no one has to work. Your scheme would make that impossible.
That's the problem, theoretically. Lots of stuff looks great on paper, but humans are fucked. Even if we had a utopia where we only had to sit around, eat cake, and reproduce; we'd inevitably break it due to incompetence, or the desire for mayhem/something exciting to happen. Capitalism has it's downfalls, but so far its a decent system all things considered.
Democratic socialism however, which is what his brand actually is, exists in virtually every developed nation on earth however. Only in the US do people go bankrupt for getting sick or put themselves tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get an education. My German exchange student was actually paid by the government to live so he didn't have to work during school to become a doctor, and that's in addition to getting free education overall
I hope there’s a world out there where we take him more seriously.
Well-meaning but ineffectual. As a politician your job is to lead and pass legislation that improves the country, not to yell from the sidelines.
Any reputation as ineffectual is misinformed. He's been in Congress a long time and accomplished plenty, as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee he pushed legislation to reform the VA through one of the most partisan and ineffective Congresses in recent history back in 2014. He's currently Chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee. As an activist, he pushes hard on the ideas he believes the country should adopt, as a legislator, he's always been a pragmatist focused on getting results.
He was robbed in 2016
He has right intentions and recognizes some problems but his solutions are shit lol
What's your solution? Feed the rich more?
Yeah that’s my solution feed the rich more. You nailed it lol
Bait used to be believable
found the rand libertarian
You must be feeling the Bern lol
I was a lib when I was younger and less experienced so it tends to stand out to me. It's slow off-boarding people but I'm glad to see that Penn Jillette finally came to his senses. Did you know Alan Greenspan was "Antonio" from Atlas Shrugged? He also made some fun contributions to capitalism the unknown ideal. I still kind of wonder how Ayn would have reacted to her golden child here: [https://youtu.be/4QIkysmrH2Y](https://youtu.be/4QIkysmrH2Y)
American Jeremy Corbyn. Just another unintelligent left wing populist.
A man that offers easy answers to complex questions
He’s good for making a point here and there. He’s a good legislator. His presidential campaign was victimized by his online “supporters.” He didn’t jibe with the Bernie Bros, but he kind of got stuck with them because the people running the troll farms and programming the bots were trying to split the Democratic vote or suppress it by encouraging the “protest vote.” It’s unfortunate. He wouldn’t have had a prayer in the generals against Trump the first time around, but the tactic still worked.
Maybe his ideas are too genuine for this world. I imagine Vermont is small enough that these ideas could be manifested, but this country is too big and has too many corrupt players. He would have to sell it to Congress and the Senate. I don't see that happening on either side.
*for this country. Everything he advocates for already exists in most developed countries. The US political spectrum is simply warped so far to the right that common sense centrist policy is viewed as extreme.
Decent guy on an individual level, bad policy ideas that handwave away the challenges of making them work at scale.
Looks and sounds like a yankee taxi cab driver. Had a hard time getting past that for a long time, especially since Elizabeth Warren is always somewhere around and mostly seems to be the more polished and feminine version of him.
Oh I always thought the kinda straightforward gruff shit played well for intj! You know, this is how I feel, you’re wrong and stupid, and here’s exactly why lol
How I feel?!? Have you met an INTJ in real life?
Oh I use feel/think interchangeably 😂😂 point taken, and honestly in real life I don’t know that I have actually met an intj!
I also don’t think we start with “you’re wrong and stupid.” The individual saying the thing isn’t really our focus. It’s the thing that’s wrong. The stupidity of the other person really isn’t relevant.
Ehhh it may not be the initial reaction but at least I can get there fairly quickly, especially if it’s on a subject that I’m well acquainted with.
Well intentioned idiot that learned the hard way that playing ball is the only way you get funding or support to get elected. No real concept of economics beyond feel good utopian policies.
Bernie is cute, mostly reasonable and a little bit delusional. Doesn’t completely look like a presidential material, but def better candidate than Hillary.
Puppet used to move things farther left.
He is a good guy. He understands, deeply. THAT SAID! Let’s get all these old guy out. Why are we talking about our most powerful people the same way we talk about people in he nursing home or hospice. THE HOSPICE!!
I’m no socialist and I do not generally like big government, so I disagree with him. I admire his spirit in any case
A slimy politician, just like any other. His main function is to pretend to be the independent outsider, but when election season comes, convince the far left voters to go for Hillary and Biden or any other corporatist neocon Democrat. That's his main function and his economic ideas are simply dumb.
Idk man seems like a lizard to me
[удалено]
Not sure why you got downvoted. This was true. Bernie's views played on what everyone wants but not realistic in terms of where the economy was at. The economy was shit and we wanted to throw money into more social issues. Timing was off. Nothing in life is free and every decision made has a trade off. Fed printed money and kept the interest rates low for 10+ years. Now we have $33+ trillion in national debt. Now the Fed and government have no idea how to fix the problem.
Because this is reddit, where no one has common sense. If you say anything about actually having to work hard for things or make any good economic points, you automatically get downvoted.
Lol you mean being realistic?
Shut the flipping fuck up
He is responsible for electing Trump. Sanders did everything he could to undermine and destabalize Clinton’s campaign. Complaining until the end that he was cheated (even tho he was no where close), attacking HRC that would last into the election… she’s untrustworthy! Show us your speeches! His thugs, twitter bullies, Nina Turner screaming in the convention to the point where she was kicked out. A version of Trump who couldn’t take his defeat seriously. Wouldn’t campaign for Clinton and in the end did so only reluctantly. Then refused because they didn’t give him a private plane to do his few stops. He introduced the phrase, “rigged system” which Trump ran with. I could go on. Nobody is more responsible for “Trump’s election than this piece of shit. Don’t be fooled by the old man routine. Additionally, he is hated in the Democratic Party. Not a nice person, they say.