• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders Is As Hazy on Details As Trump Is

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Someone wise said in another thread.
Transcripts are nice but...where's the footage?
And also, they didn't even bother to include the entire interview?

I also find Sanders about 200X saner than Trump but that's just me.
 
This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders - Washington Post.

Neither one of these guys will be able to do what they say they want to do. Breaking up banks? Free tuition? Prosecuting Wall Street evil doers? Ain't going to happen. Press Bernie on details and he falls apart. He hasn't thought about the means or the consequences. Press Trump on details and bluster, blab, exaggerate, and outright lie. We've got a couple of badass con men on our hands.
So in other words its no different than the John Kerry campaign of 2004 ("I've got a great plan!" Awesome...lets see it. "My plan will work and it will be awesome!" Cool...can we see the plan? "Its a great plan I tell you and when you see it you will say "say...this IS a great plan"." Cool.So..about the plan...) and Hope and Change of 2008.
 
Someone wise said in another thread.
Transcripts are nice but...where's the footage?

Wait, is the Bernie campaign disputing the transcript? Did he not sound clueless in real life?

I hadn't heard that.
 
Someone wise said in another thread.
Transcripts are nice but...where's the footage?
And also, they didn't even bother to include the entire interview?

I also find Sanders about 200X saner than Trump but that's just me.

Finding that old windbag sane is a sign of potential illness.
 
So in other words its no different than the John Kerry campaign of 2004 ("I've got a great plan!" Awesome...lets see it. "My plan will work and it will be awesome!" Cool...can we see the plan? "Its a great plan I tell you and when you see it you will say "say...this IS a great plan"." Cool.So..about the plan...) and Hope and Change of 2008.

That's very similar to Hillary's plan. I'll fight for you, blah, blah, blah...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065739894 said:
That's very similar to Hillary's plan. I'll fight for you, blah, blah, blah...
Politics is easy when you know who and what you are appealing to.

Bernie Sanders: Its not fair...Its not your fault....and Ima give you free ****.

And the crowd goes wild!
 
Wait, is the Bernie campaign disputing the transcript? Did he not sound clueless in real life?

He didn't sound clueless to me. He sounded like he knew he was being called out and didn't want to admit that he wasn't being serious when he said he'd break up the banks, so he did his best to dodge the pointed questions.

What's crazy to me is that people running for President are willing to say these things that they're going to do without having pieced together the slightest semblance of a hypothetical, quasi-plausible, quasi-detailed explanation of how they'd actually do those things.
 
Last edited:

For anyone a little less keen on letting Fox do their thinking for them, Sanders' 1985 Nicaragua interview can be found here:

YouTube - Bernie Sanders: Nicaragua Interview (8/8/1985)

Spoiler alert: At no point does he suggest that the situation there was better than the US in any way, except perhaps the approval rating of the Nicaraguan President which Reagan's administration was at the time attempting to overthrow. One of the darker segments of US history unfortunately, making it one the only countries to have been condemned by the International Court of Justice for international terrorism.
 

Oh I figured it would be a highly edited attack piece and Stossel was king of that genre back in the day. The attack piece focused on MAYOR Sanders discussing the South American mud pit President Reagan was creating. From right wing death squads killing nuns, students and peasants wanting a chance to farm to selling arms to Iran- it wasn't a shining moment for the good ol' USofA.

Now the breadline quote- the ENTIRE point was comparing at least having access to food beats other countries we support that just let people starve. :2wave:

But nice try... :peace
 
This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders - Washington Post.

Neither one of these guys will be able to do what they say they want to do. Breaking up banks? Free tuition? Prosecuting Wall Street evil doers? Ain't going to happen. Press Bernie on details and he falls apart. He hasn't thought about the means or the consequences. Press Trump on details and bluster, blab, exaggerate, and outright lie. We've got a couple of badass con men on our hands.

What politician actually gives any details? The Republocrats are all about talking points, not plans.
 
He didn't sound clueless to me. He sounded like he knew he was being called out and didn't want to admit that he wasn't being serious when he said he'd break up the banks, so he did his best to dodge the pointed questions.

What's crazy to me is that people running for President are willing to say these things that they're going to do without having pieced together the slightest semblance of a hypothetical, quasi-plausible, quasi-detailed explanation of how they'd actually do those things.

Yeah, watching Trump and Bernie trying to wing it on the details of their plans is as uncomfortable as I felt watching unprepared kids try to wing it in high school oral presentations.
 
What politician actually gives any details? The Republocrats are all about talking points, not plans.

If you ask them then they respond with details that make sense. Hillary and any of the other Republican candidates can do this, but Trump and Sanders fall on their faces or try to bluster through when asked how they are going to do all the stuff they are promising to do.
 
If you ask them then they respond with details that make sense. Hillary and any of the other Republican candidates can do this, but Trump and Sanders fall on their faces or try to bluster through when asked how they are going to do all the stuff they are promising to do.

Hahahah. Hillary does not. The others are just better at dancing around the answer is all.

What are Hillary's actual plans? What are Cruz's actual plans? And they need to make sense mind you. Why don't you give the bulleted list of their actual plans (not talking points) that make sense to accomplish their goals.

This should be good.
 
For anyone a little less keen on letting Fox do their thinking for them, Sanders' 1985 Nicaragua interview can be found here:

YouTube - Bernie Sanders: Nicaragua Interview (8/8/1985)

Spoiler alert: At no point does he suggest that the situation there was better than the US in any way, except perhaps the approval rating of the Nicaraguan President which Reagan's administration was at the time attempting to overthrow. One of the darker segments of US history unfortunately, making it one the only countries to have been condemned by the International Court of Justice for international terrorism.

This was the Cold War, of course. Left wingers always tell the history of those years as if the Soviet Union didn't exist, as if we were not in conflict with an implacably hostile superpower that was trying to cut us off and kill us. No, to them we consorted with unsavory latin American types because we're just evil.
 
This was the Cold War, of course. Left wingers always tell the history of those years as if the Soviet Union didn't exist, as if we were not in conflict with an implacably hostile superpower that was trying to cut us off and kill us. No, to them we consorted with unsavory latin American types because we're just evil.

Of course, all opposition to democracy and breaches of international law are acceptable if you've got an enemy! The publicly-declared end justifies any means.
 
This was the Cold War, of course. Left wingers always tell the history of those years as if the Soviet Union didn't exist, as if we were not in conflict with an implacably hostile superpower that was trying to cut us off and kill us. No, to them we consorted with unsavory latin American types because we're just evil.

What part of the cold war justified giving arms to terrorists? Can you clarify?
 
Back
Top Bottom