Bernie Sanders agreed (voted) with Hillary 93% of the time.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Is the implication that the 3% difference is a bad thing? It is that difference that is pushing democrats toward Bernie.

You notice that Sanders' critics are careful here not to actually address any of his positions, they're just trying to damn him by association. "Guilt by association" is one of the more common political fallacies, and we see it in fine fiddle here, particularly by those who pretend NOT to be politically motivated.

Ever notice that the ones who claim to be apolitical are some of the most partisan in their speech?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Metallicus
Bernie is a career politician and is using the same hope and change BS that got his buddy Obama elected. He doesn't even try to hide his Socialist agenda. Sadly people are allowing themselves to be fooled again just like they were with Obama.

The first rule of politics is to never trust a politician. Some of us here see through his carp and some are still being fooled. Hopefully enough people are enlightened and see Bernie for the shyster he really is.

And who are you supporting this time (2016)?

Who stands out from the crowd, in your mind?

I am completely disappointed by the field of candidates we have right now. I know I won't vote for someone who wants more Government. They all seem to want more Government. I don't currently see a good option. Just less bad.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They never present any actual facts or data on anything either. Just vague "Socialist are Bad" memes. When they do provide a link they misquote or cherry pick to twist the message too. Then when you confront them about it or call them out it's nothing but crickets after that. Usually until they think you've left then they sneak back in and post another couple comments.

He must really be scaring the hell out of a lot of people with his popularity and message. For a guy who gets so little media attention he sure has a lot of attackers trying everything possible to slander his name and record.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Is the implication that the 3% difference is a bad thing? It is that difference that is pushing democrats toward Bernie.

You notice that Sanders' critics are careful here not to actually address any of his positions, they're just trying to damn him by association. "Guilt by association" is one of the more common political fallacies, and we see it in fine fiddle here, particularly by those who pretend NOT to be politically motivated.

Ever notice that the ones who claim to be apolitical are some of the most partisan in their speech?

I can give you a position I hate. Socialist.

I don't want a government that takes care of me. I want a government that doesn't meddle in my life.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Thats the case according to this NY Times article.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a liberal Democrat on domestic matters, and Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate. In fact, from January 2007 to January 2009, Mrs. Clinton, representing New York, voted with Mr. Sanders about as often as she did with the like-minded Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

As Ive said before, Sanders is, in essence, a Democrat whos also a (self-described) socialist.

Is he a better choice than Hillary? Probably, but lets be honest, thats not saying much.

Theres a thread on ATS about how he "called out" the banks' CEOs, a publicity stunt aimed at the masses. If he's really against corporate welfare, work to stop the government policies which allow it.

Instead, he recently demanded that the "Fed" bail out an entire country...

When he actually had the chance to reform the "Fed", he sold out.

OK so what did they vote the same way on? You say they vote the same but you don't provide the evidence. Also we don't know if what they voted on was good or not. What we do know is that Bernie has been consistent about his views and policies his whole career, Hillary is a flip flopper so we need all the info.

So if hillary voted the same as Bernie it would not be the worst thing in the world. I mean they can be talking about building a wall to keep refugees out of the country and then turn around and call those refugees murders, rapists, drug dealers "the worst of the worst".

At least Bernie cares about the average person unlike every republican.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"Damn him by association"? Really? How about damn him for support?

The Democrat party has backed, supported, marginalized Obama's actions for the last eight year, including passing the ACA without even reading the damn thing.

The whole Democrat party shares Obama's guilt. That includes the candidates the Democrat party regurgitates this time around.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Is the implication that the 3% difference is a bad thing? It is that difference that is pushing democrats toward Bernie.

You notice that Sanders' critics are careful here not to actually address any of his positions, they're just trying to damn him by association. "Guilt by association" is one of the more common political fallacies, and we see it in fine fiddle here, particularly by those who pretend NOT to be politically motivated.

Ever notice that the ones who claim to be apolitical are some of the most partisan in their speech?

I can give you a position I hate. Socialist.

I don't want a government that takes care of me. I want a government that doesn't meddle in my life.

Strictly speaking, socialism is an economic not a political sysem.

Sanders, by the way is a Democratic Socialist.

You're opposed to a welfare state, not socialism, or democratic socialism, based on what you're saying here.

Sadly, every government of whatever level will at times "meddle" in your life; although I can admire utopian dreams as much as the next person.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Damn him by association"? Really? How about damn him for support?

The Democrat party has backed, supported, marginalized Obama's actions for the last eight year, including passing the ACA without even reading the damn thing.

The whole Democrat party shares Obama's guilt. That includes the candidates the Democrat party regurgitates this time around.

You missed the part in the OP trying to imply that Clinton and Sanders are "93% the same"?

Hmmm.

Supported and marginalized ... at the same time? Those terms mean opposite things.

This is not about Obama, and it's not about Democrats, per se. Those are axes to grind elsewhere, I would think.

What are your issues with Mr. Sanders, the nominal topic of the thread?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not too swift are we? Yes, support and marginalize have two different meanings. A lot has gone on in these last seven years. Support his actions. Marginalize the illegality of his actions, too much to bother with here, but you get the idea...I hope...

To make it simpler for you, I don't care WHO is nominated by the Democrat party. The day of a JFK is long gone. If that candidate is endorsed by the Democrat Party then he's part of, has supported, the Current president.

Guilt by act, not 'association'.

a reply to: theMediator

What did you expect?

For the last few decades, politics has revolved around slander.

It's the game Americans love to play, and it makes some Americans butt tingle and begin to hurt when faced with slandering Bernie Sanders.

It's not easy to do, so any attempt will do!

a reply to: Metallicus

Well, we can tell you don't like Bernie Sanders.

Care to elobarate why other than an opinion and the devil itself, "Socialism?"

This reminds me of the 1930 propoganda used against marijuana, "the Devils candy," people are terrified of change!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Is the implication that the 3% difference is a bad thing? It is that difference that is pushing democrats toward Bernie.

You notice that Sanders' critics are careful here not to actually address any of his positions, they're just trying to damn him by association. "Guilt by association" is one of the more common political fallacies, and we see it in fine fiddle here, particularly by those who pretend NOT to be politically motivated.

Ever notice that the ones who claim to be apolitical are some of the most partisan in their speech?

I can give you a position I hate. Socialist.

I don't want a government that takes care of me. I want a government that doesn't meddle in my life.

Strictly speaking, socialism is an economic not a political sysem.

Sanders, by the way is a Democratic Socialist.

You're opposed to a welfare state, not socialism, or democratic socialism, based on what you're saying here.

Sadly, every government of whatever level will at times "meddle" in your life; although I can admire utopian dreams as much as the next person.

I know I will be meddled with, but I want to minimize it and Bernie would be a huge meddler. I was trying to answer your question for you of what I disliked about Bernie.

I prefer a voluntary society where I am left alone. Socialism is something that would conflict directly with my lifestyle.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Why take a look at his voting record??? His actions seem to be own to me.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Is the implication that the 3% difference is a bad thing? It is that difference that is pushing democrats toward Bernie.

You notice that Sanders' critics are careful here not to actually address any of his positions, they're just trying to damn him by association. "Guilt by association" is one of the more common political fallacies, and we see it in fine fiddle here, particularly by those who pretend NOT to be politically motivated.

Ever notice that the ones who claim to be apolitical are some of the most partisan in their speech?

I can give you a position I hate. Socialist.

I don't want a government that takes care of me. I want a government that doesn't meddle in my life.

Oh, is that true now?

You don't want the government meddling your life?

Too late, bud!

Socialist programs Americans just love.

NASA
National Weather Service
Public Parks
Prisons
Jails
Public Schools
Secret Service
Vaccines
Public Universities
Sewer Systems
Roads and Insteratate Highway
Department of Agriculture
Amber Alerts
Amtrak
Public Beaches
Public Busing Service
Business Subsidies
The IRS
Public Landfills
Public Libraries
Medicare
Medicaid
The CIA
The FBI
The Court System
Department of Energy

You must truly be upset over the state of affairs in American politics today!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not too swift are we? Yes, support and marginalize have two different meanings. A lot has gone on in these last seven years. Support his actions. Marginalize the illegality of his actions, too much to bother with here, but you get the idea...I hope...

To make it simpler for you, I don't care WHO is nominated by the Democrat party. The day of a JFK is long gone. If that candidate is endorsed by the Democrat Party then he's part of, has supported, the Current president.

Guilt by act, not 'association'.

LOL ... yeah, you make silly mistakes and you want to play it off by trying to throw it back on me? What was it someone said, when you resort to personal attacks you've lost the argument.

Yeah, big surprise, you're against the Democratic Party. We'll alert the media.

Big deal. The whole argument in the OP is simple, straightforward guilt by association.

Neither you nor anyone else has pointed out how and why Sanders is the same as Clinton.

Why not stop droning on about the ACA and Obama (there are plenty of threads for that) and tell us about Bernie or Hillary?

And for something novel, how about policy specifics.

a reply to: mOjOm

OK. Now the thread referred to supporting Obama, not Hillary. Especially when Hillary has flipped on a number of those issues. the overlap referred to is OBAMA.

Besides, voting record says little when that vote changes nothing...other than to make a political point. (Yes, all candidates.) There is a difference between Hillary and Sanders. I agree.

Both suffer the same malaise, supporting Obama. They will not escape that charge no matter which wins the nomination.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not too swift are we? Yes, support and marginalize have two different meanings. A lot has gone on in these last seven years. Support his actions. Marginalize the illegality of his actions, too much to bother with here, but you get the idea...I hope...

To make it simpler for you, I don't care WHO is nominated by the Democrat party. The day of a JFK is long gone. If that candidate is endorsed by the Democrat Party then he's part of, has supported, the Current president.

Guilt by act, not 'association'.

Your spin of guilt by association is the only point I address. You are of not interest whatsoever.


It is NOT guilt by association, as you spin. It IS guilt by the act of supporting Obama. You will not change that fact nor will I not point it out each and every time you make the attempt....

LOL ... yeah, you make silly mistakes and you want to play it off by trying to throw it back on me? What was it someone said, when you resort to personal attacks you've lost the argument.

Yeah, big surprise, you're against the Democratic Party. We'll alert the media.

Big deal. The whole argument in the OP is simple, straightforward guilt by association.

Neither you nor anyone else has pointed out how and why Sanders is the same as Clinton.

Why not stop droning on about the ACA and Obama (there are plenty of threads for that) and tell us about Bernie or Hillary?

And for something novel, how about policy specifics.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: mOjOm

OK. Now the thread referred to supporting Obama, not Hillary. Especially when Hillary has flipped on a number of those issues. the overlap referred to is OBAMA.

Well, the title of the thread is "Bernie Sanders agreed (voted) with Hillary 93%". It's only you who is talking about Obama.

Besides, voting record says little when that vote changes nothing...other than to make a political point. (Yes, all candidates.) There is a difference between Hillary and Sanders. I agree.

I'd say voting record means everything. How you vote determines what direction any changes take. To say a politicians voting records means nothing makes me wonder what exactly in your opinion does mean something???
My guess would be what party affiliation they belong to. Truly judging a book by it's cover and not it's content.

Both suffer the same malaise, supporting Obama. They will not escape that charge no matter which wins the nomination.

Well, if Hillary and Sanders are different, which you also just said yourself and Hillary is one of Obama's biggest supporters. That would mean that Sanders would not be as much of a Obama supporter after all wouldn't it.

You cannot escape such simple and sound logic no matter how much you try.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not too swift are we? Yes, support and marginalize have two different meanings. A lot has gone on in these last seven years. Support his actions. Marginalize the illegality of his actions, too much to bother with here, but you get the idea...I hope...

To make it simpler for you, I don't care WHO is nominated by the Democrat party. The day of a JFK is long gone. If that candidate is endorsed by the Democrat Party then he's part of, has supported, the Current president.

Guilt by act, not 'association'.

Your spin of guilt by association is the only point I address. You are of not interest whatsoever.


It is NOT guilt by association, as you spin. It IS guilt by the act of supporting Obama. You will not change that fact nor will I not point it out each and every time you make the attempt....

LOL ... yeah, you make silly mistakes and you want to play it off by trying to throw it back on me? What was it someone said, when you resort to personal attacks you've lost the argument.

Yeah, big surprise, you're against the Democratic Party. We'll alert the media.

Big deal. The whole argument in the OP is simple, straightforward guilt by association.

Neither you nor anyone else has pointed out how and why Sanders is the same as Clinton.

Why not stop droning on about the ACA and Obama (there are plenty of threads for that) and tell us about Bernie or Hillary?

And for something novel, how about policy specifics.

Yep, I posted that.

Any Sanders' policies you'd like to compare to Clinton's policies? Anything?

Theres a thread on ATS about how he "called out" the banks' CEOs, a publicity stunt aimed at the masses. If he's really against corporate welfare, work to stop the government policies which allow it.

Sanders is NOT against corporate welfare.

Hell voted 93% percent of the time supporting it.

All social programs are corporate welfare. Some people just refuse to see it.