One that is finding it harder than she expected.

The fact that your post doesn't even add to the conversation, and is the first post in this thread, proves that.

I see another time out in your future.

To the corner, dear Brave......

Bernie is made out to be victim at the first remote opportunity.

And yet we are to hold their feet to the fire!

Not impressed

I'm asking if there are any areas for legitimate criticism.

I'm not going to help you troll my candidate.

Can there be any criticism of Hillary that is not portrayed as sexist?

I know you did not like it.

No candidate is perfect- as I'm sure any Clinton supporter is well aware. I suspect that you and other Clinton supporters mistakenly believe that Bernie supporters are naive and see no flaws in him. I'll go ahead and name a couple of things that I disagree with Sanders on and then list my much larger concerns with Hillary. Let's compare, shall we?

My concerns regarding Sanders; I feel that his history on gun legislation could be stronger. I also am concerned that the issue regarding his raising taxes could hurt him in the general election after he gets the nomination. The gop will play that up and try to twist the truth.

My much larger concerns regarding Clinton;

Her position on Keystone (or lack of one). She waited until the same week that Obama made his decision before announcing where she stood. That's not standing up for the environment. That's politics.

Wall Street money. Whether it's impression or reality, it's there and it can't help but make me wonder. Generally speaking, it's hard to imagine the banks and Wall Street throwing all of that money at her and saying "here you go, we don't expect anything in return."

Her opposition to Glass Steagall. Though I do recall her telling the banks to "cut it out." Thanks Hillary.

Her Iraq vote. You may be sick of hearing about it but it's a big deal. It was poor judgement and lack of foresight. Sanders saw that it would destabilize the region. And it did. Now we not have the legacy of the Iraq war, we have the current ISIS situation.

Speaking of that, there is the no-fly zone proposal. Another poor foreign policy decision. What happens when Russian jets cross that line? You have to be prepared for that and I don't see it.

The email and server investigation by the FBI. Sorry, it's real. It very well could end up being nothing in the end, but what if it's not? What if it drags on until the general election and then she gets indicted? Then you end up with a republican in the White House.

Gay marriage. You can see how she has flip flopped over the years, as confirmed via politifact. Another change based on the political winds.

Her lies regarding Sanders' plan to expand upon the existing ACA, in which she claims he is going to end it altogether. That is an outrageous lie and I would never support a candidate would make this claim.

So yeah, there you go. Look forward to your response.

You expressed concern about his record on guns and his pledge to raise taxes. I wasn't asking you to say here you disagree with him, but to say what you think is a valid area for question or challenge.

So, based on what you wrote about your concerns, it seems you think that it's fair to discuss his position on guns and his tax plan and that questions or criticisms raised about these issues are not, ipso fact, an unfair attack on Sanders?

Yes, those are my main concerns about him. Odd, that omission leads you to believe that the other things are not fair to discuss or considered an attack. No, nothing else is off the table. So long as it's related to actual topics (ie, not the Bill Clinton comparison of Sanders supporters to the Tea Party). I think that's where the confusion is. Many pro-Clinton posts seem to focus more on the mud-slinging, non-issue topics, rather than focusing on real issues that you'd find in a debate format. I'll grant you that some Sanders posts do the same. And that's unfortunate, given how much issue-related material we have to work with when we are discussing Clinton...

I find it curious that whenever I post anything about Clinton and the long list of issues that I have with her that I never get a response. It almost leads me to believe that there appears to be a list of things that are considered unfair to discuss with Clinton supporters. Seems ironic, doesn't it?

I wasn't suggesting that anything you didn't mention is off the table. I simply meant that the things you DID mention are ON the table.

Gotta start somewhere ...

I appreciate your response.

I know things get a little heated on these boards. Always happy to discuss relevant issues.

he's bad for X, just saying X won't vote for him because he didn't do X, Y, and Z and he did is bs.

Would be a good start.

Do some reading of the many attacks and responses

If people told the truth and used his and his supporters quotes in full and in context it would be a great start. To bad you just do not like what I think.

when presented with the simplest of answers.

... asked about Sanders

deviate from the subject at hand and make statements designed to insult the candidate and his supporters.

Oh, wait ...

There are simply more Sanders supporters.

I don't think DU was ever this lopsided with the membership in the previous uncontested primary seasons.

and I disagree with his stance on drone's.

Now it your turn, where do you disagree with your candidate?

I already noted an area of criticism in my OP

but he is the most Liberal member of the Senate.

Kinda hard to criticize the person closest to my point of view.


BTW, Hillary only ranked 11th and wasn't even in the Senate that long (comparatively).

because of the SCOTUS vacancy the (R)s are going to be going crazy about the 2nd amendment.

Bernie not being an ideologue on gun control makes him more electable than Hillary.

Let them beat the dead horse.


It is true. I disagree with some of his votes on gun control but he is still a far better choice than Hillary.

to valid criticism. It could actually be something you agree with him on, but recognize that it's possible for someone to criticize him for it without it being an unfair attack.

But compare that to the 19 minute speech on the Iraq War Resolution plus the actual vote itself.

And the recent call for a no fly zone in Syria.

At this point I say Bernie is already a far better choice for our party than Hillary.

From there you can go onto her calling marriage "a Sacred bond between a man and a woman" and then flipping on it after the polls showed a majority of Americans supported marriage equality. Anyone who can flip on something he/she considers "sacred" has no moral compass.

Her support for NAFTA is unacceptable to me. Her continuing support for free trade just makes it worse.

I can go on and on and on... but the simple truth is that she is a terrible choice as our nominee. I hope people will get past simply trying to make history by electing a woman and take a serious look at just how bad she really is.

He should have been out in the media more, all these years pushing his message. Even though they all suck. Just being on CSPAN and Thom Hartman is/was not enough.

That's more of a strategy issue, but thanks for responding. I really do appreciate it.

Obama was all over the tv in his first couple years, reaching out to repubs over and over, yet the media ran with the RW meme that Obama won't reach out to them. I was tired of seeing him on the damn tv reaching out to them yet an alternative reality was created.

That leads me to your criticism, how the hell would Bernie get any face time on MSNBC, let alone any other news outlet. The media basically ignored him until a few weeks ago. Hartman was one of his few options. (More likely only)

Thus the true rub, the media is our biggest problem. Those of us who seek out info can find it elsewhere, but you average voter just isn't getting the opportunity to get educated via our corporate controlled media.

Seriously, listen to this video (it's longer than it looks but about 7 minutes)

I just don't see him having many options to get his message out until recently. The "liberal" media outlet, MSNBC ran off Phil Donahue during the ramp up to the Iraq war, then Olberman as soon as Bush was gone. Keith had a history of pissing off bosses, but Phil?! That was purely a shut the hell up message to Liberals on a subject that begged to be discussed in detail.

Bernie's message took off prior to classic mainstream media giving him any time, they finally had to give him some airtime when he tied Iowa and cruised in NH.

Hartman is a perfect example of the issues faced in mainstream media. He has satellite radio and I believe some small cable channel. A guy who focuses on substance and diving deep into issues. Add his mostly non confrontational style and you have a poster child for the perfect left wing host of a major political program. He isn't out of shape, not ugly, a face made for TV, but he is the wrong political persuasion. There isn't a guy on Fox who is within 30 IQ points and he is head and shoulders better than anyone on CNN or MSNBC. Thus we are back to the main issue, media is the problem.

And he always has a very valid and logical explanation for his votes. So, no, i can't help you with any criticisms because I don't know of any. The man is just what he appears to be. It is rare and refreshing.

I'm trying to find out what you think are valid areas for someone else to criticize him without it being assumed to be unfair or an attack. Are there any areas of his policies or record that can be validly criticized by someone who may have a different POV than you?

[Font size="64" ][font color="red"][Center]
BLATANT?
[/font][/font]

[font size=6]LOUD?[/font]

I worry about his health. I worry about Hillary's health as well.

But I think I'll pass on this opportunity

his ties to Wall Street and the enormous speaking fees he has recieved from them simply for showing up..,

have critics arrested and sent them to a communist GULag yet?

So what is the YUUUUUUUUGE issue with Bernie Sanders that you don't have with Hillary Clinton?

I still have difficulties in finding any criticism that has much substance, or policy disagreement that cannot be refuted.

But I must note that I found one remark indicating that Bernie only appealed to "elitists".
I have seen, read and heard people calling him and his supporters sexists, racists, white trash, and nefarious operators for Karl Rove.
I have seen some of Hillary's and Bernie's speeches. I have seen them debate. I have seen their records.

What makes me wonder...is why do people insist on voting for political family dynasties who are on repeat?

Votes and proposals are validnto bring up as long as it is in good faith. Don't distort the candidates record or quotes and provide reasons for why you are critizing. I think that's the only way to get a serious debate over issues.

That makes a lot of sense.

and his vote may not have mattered, if the vote was much closer it would be a ding against him. He was right in his reasons for opposing it, I just think the vote was so crucial to the American economy's future that if his vote had any meaning it would be a blunder.

I think he can be criticized for showing a lack of depth in his answers; a concern I would not have, at least on economics, with Liz Warren. However, it is also possible he is trying to stay on message deliberately, so this is kind of a matter of perspective.

I think he is unrealistic to expect Single Payer healthcare to pass, and would be better served by campaigning on a public option, which actually might be achievable in the next 8 years. I also seriously doubt the economics behind his proposed plan.

I think he goes too far when he says that the business of wall st. is fraud; though I certainly understand the reasons, it is a sweeping statement that justifies the characterizations of him as a populist. I trust, however, that as president he will have center-left economic advisors and his natural suspicious of Wall St will be more of a blessing than a hindrance in pursuing policy.

All of these things are small potatoes really though. And especially compared to Clinton where I find very little that I even agree with her on.

Edited to add: What post #48 said, too. I would love to debate issues, but I am quick to realize when I am discussing with someone who is being disingenuous. And then I get snarky. So please, good faith disagreements if you want to talk policies/issues (which I welcome!)

Anything other than to gain an understanding about how the 'other side' thinks?

DU used to be a place for rational discussion about various candidates, why we supported them, why others should, why we oppose certain candidates, etc. It's never been conflict-free and there were always flame-throwers and disrupters, but they were in the minority and there was always room for rational discussion.

That has changed and DU is now almost nothing but people screaming and yelling at each other and those who even attempt rational discussion are shouted down, mocked and taunted. A positive OP about a candidate is usually swarmed with ugly and snarky attacks. Even the mildest criticism or questions about a candidate - perfectly normal and even necessary aspect of any political conversation - are immediately shouted down as attacks. As I said in the OP, it seems to me that this is very one-sided, but I'm sure some people will disagree. But it has appeared to me that any criticism of Sanders is treated as as an attack and the person raising it is not only swarmed, but then mocked and smeared themselves. And if an OP or comment hits a nerve, even if it's perfectly appropriate, it is immediately alerted and hidden by DU's rigged jury system.

I raised the question because we've been told so often that criticism or questions raised about Sanders is out of line, I'm trying to figure out where the line actually is. What areas of his record and policies ARE appropriate to discuss critically? Where is the "safe" zone?

A few supporters, including you, have offered honest assessments of what is appropriate to critique, which I really appreciate. But most of those who responded have done so in the same way most of these discussions have gone. They've personally attacked me for even asking the question, accused me of conducting opposition research, insisted that there is nothing at all that Sanders should be challenged on and, of course, used this as another opportunity to remind everyone how much they hate Hillary Clinton. It is clear that, to many people on this board, the problem is not that the criticism of Sanders has crossed the line - in fact, there IS no line because as some have stated outright, Sanders is completely above ANY criticism.

Fortunatelly, it is also clear that some Sanders supporters are genuinely interested in open and rational discussions and this thread helped me identify some of them and will enable me to direct and shape my comments and engagement more effectively with them.

Why? Because it is a weakness that was already at the heart of an entire prior cycle of a Presidential primary contest eight years ago. It is a weakness that she now readily admits herself. Expressing it in the open here or anywhere else gives no clue to anyone's opposition research about new additional ways she may be vulnerable to losing support if it becomes highlighted.

Honestly I don't think it is realistic in the heat of a forum such as this for a supporter of one candidate to ask supporters of another to list their potential weaknesses, to the point where some could doubt your sincerity in doing so. Consider the simple math of this alone. You start a thread addressed to Bernie supporters where you offer up one weakness on her part - one that is already fully baked into the contest, and then ask for a number of Bernie supporters to list a weakness of his. The format alone guarantees that this thread will end up compiling a list of numerous Sanders potential weaknesses in return for your admission of the most obvious Clinton one.

I accept that your intentions are good - it' a nice idea in theory but problematic in practice.

I asked what areas you think are fair to challenge. That could be something where you think he is very strong and agree with him 100% - but you still think there's room for fair discussion and possible disagreement.

As I said, it seems that some of his supporters believe that it's unfair for him to be questioned or challenged about ANYTHING. Certainly, you don't believe THAT, do you?

The devil always lies in that detail.

- don't like the use of the word socialist for his campaign but realize after learning his history, he had no choice

- not keen on the term "political revolution" - think it might frighten the wrong folks - which they could have found a better, less threatening term

- he could do a better job of selling himself. I looked at his civil rights history and it is lengthy and frequent - he has a better story than he's telling - selling himself short

- he can come across gruff and angry, wish he could keep that in check

- if I were in his boots, I'd give a counter speech on racial justice. He has a better story to tell. Obama was right. Hillary calculates. She doesn't have conviction. Bernie has conviction - it's in his heart. He should show that too and tell people about one of the causes he's been working at since 1991.

that do?

dishonest on so many issues and has flip-flopped too much to be taken seriously.

I don't agree with all of your conclusions, but this is your honest take and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

if either candidate had any plans to help students/grads that are already facing student loan crisis. I know they have plans for those go into college.

Not a peep from Bernie supporters. I have pm's from Hillary people telling me her positions.

here's one:

including a link to his page about the subject. There was one response regarding Hillary. So what more do you need?

There was one. The first response. And they weren't sure either.

The second was from a Hillary person.

The one with the link came AFTER I posted in THIS thread.

As I said, I received responses from Hillary via pm, which I posted in the comment you're responding to. So you'd be incorrect about the number of replies I received from Hillary supporters. I have 2 more pm's.

As for 'what more do I want'. Nothing. I want nothing.

I thought I was on a Democratic site where these types of topics were discussed. Apparently I was wrong.

Bernie must have all the support he needs. I won't bother to ask about his positions again.

Thank you for your reply.

People that support Bernie Sanders refute criticism of him and his campaign made by people that support Hillary Clinton.

Why, now that I think about it, Hillary Clinton supporters refute criticism of her and her campaign made by people that support Bernie Sanders!

I think you are really on to something, Empowerer.

I can't really think of any policy issues where I disagree because the things he stands for are things that I've supported my entire adult life. That being said, I'm not in the habit of criticizing Sec. Clinton. My job is to support my candidate, not tear down someone else's.

But I'm not asking you to say where you disagree with him. I'm asking where you think it's fair for others to disagree with him. Are there any areas where you believe he could fairly be criticized or scrutinized, even if you think he's right?

who doesn't agree with him since, as said, I've agreed with his positions for over 50 years. But I suppose the opposition would be fair to point out that it will be difficult to move his plans forward given the intractable nature of our current legislature and the entrenchment of corporate interests in our government. Will that work for you?

First, I want to say (as I have before) that when I announced here and elsewhere that I was supporting Sanders, Clinton supporters did not jump up and ask me about the issues. They accused me of being sexist, and even racist, and even a Libertarian (hilarious), a closet Trump supporter ... pretty much everything except for paying my taxes.

And in my experience, that phenomenon is getting worse, not better, as Sanders continues to build support. So I will answer your question ... while pointing out that from where I am sitting, it looks to me like the Clinton camp feels it has the absolute right to dish it out (while playing fast and free with the facts) but is completely offended when they have to take it.

Having gotten that off my chest, here are, I think, some legitimate criticisms of Sanders.

1) On the subject of foreign policy, I think he has to make a stronger commitment to backing away from the "unipolar world" or "benign hegemony" notion that is so beloved by neo-conservatives and certain Democrats. More than this, he has to articulate HOW he will back off from the burdens of what is effectively Empire. We don't need a specific policy here ... we need to understand the theory from which policy will be derived. What are the criteria by which he will determine if a military response is required, or to be avoided, for example? (You will doubtless observe that in my critique, I leave no room for the foreign policy of Ms. Clinton. I completely and emphatically reject her model of foreign policy as demonstrated by her actions as Secretary of State, and her campaign statements.)

2) He talks a lot about rebuilding infrastructure, but I don't know that he has a vision for what that looks like. Do we rebuild existing transportation systems, for example, or invest in systems based on newer technologies? The crisis in Flint has underscored something environmentalists have been warning about for years: Our water supplies are becoming critically endangered, and our systems for managing water supplies are woefully obsolete and decrepit. I could go on but you get my point. More than wanting a specific policy out of Sanders on these matters ... I want to understand the process by which he would arrive at a specific policy.

3) Science policy affects matters of national security, economic development, the design of infrastructure, and of course matters concerning the environment. Sanders needs a stronger approach to integrating scientific expertise into the policy making process. Of course, that is a criticism I can level at Ms Clinton, and the Republicans are all pretty much anti-science.

So there ya go. I could probably go on. I support Sanders not because he agrees with me on all issues, nor because I think he has policy wonked out all the fine grained details. I support him because he understands both intellectually and at a gut level the damage being done to this country, and has a fine theory for how to go about dealing with that.

Trav

This is very well-thought out and I appreciate your comments.

All of these are specific policy areas, so, it sounds like you're saying that his policy prescriptions - these particular ones and, I assume, others, as well - are fair areas for discussion, challenge, and criticism?

Policy is always up for debate .... but the debate must be honest. And the Clinton camp suffers in that regard, in my view. I refer as one example to Galbraith's letter of rebuttal and criticism to the critics of the Sanders plan to the analysis of Friedman, which has enthusiastically trumpted it. Turns out Galbraith has vetted Friedman's analysis and finds no actual analysis that exposes a flaw.

And I object to those tactics of disinformation. Strongly. I am 60 years old. I have played along to get along because Republicans are indeed worse. But no more. From here on out, I will act as I believe right. I may lose ... but I'm not winning on my issues of greatest concern with the Third Way types anyway.

If you want what you're getting, keep doing what you're doing. In the environmental movement we sometimes refer to Ms Clinton as "the fracking queen", and there's a reason for that.


Trav

I think that he could have been pushing for change from inside the party, at least as well as from the position as iconoclastic independent outsider.

There are a lot of good Democrats who aren't like Debbie Wasserman Schultz- who don't do things like take money from private prisons and liquor lobbyists while voting to send sick people to prison for using medical marijuana.

The Oregon Democratic Party is a solid organization with a good delegation and slate of progressive candidates, for instance, and one that has its head on straight on a number of issues that the DNC can't seem to get a handle on, nationally.

Bernie could have been working in Vermont in a similar fashion as part of the party there. The party isn't perfect, but it is where I hang my hat.

So there you go. It's a criticism.

But it doesn't disqualify him from the nomination, now, to my mind. Not at all.

that would equal the magnitude of the clusterfuck ignited by the AUMF against Iraq.

Do you not think that there is any room for rational debate about any aspect of his agenda?

as compared to Clinton, but at the same time, he's a Vermont senator. From one of the guys I work on base with, Vermont doesn't have that much in the way of PoC, so it's at least a mildly rational possibility that he hasn't built up the kind of rapport that Clinton has, and imo, doesn't deserve. But that's my two cents.

in this campaign?

If It's not appropriate to raise questions about Sanders' record, what do you think is the purpose of political discussion or debate here?

I assume you are quite comfortable challenging Hillary in a number of areas. I'm trying to find out where you think it would be fair for me to challenge Sanders' record or positions so I have a clearer understanding of the appropriate middle ground for the political debate.

It's not a trick or an attack. It's a perfectly honest and rational question that you may choose to answer or not.nd

Sorry charlie, no sale.

I'm asking what areas you think it's fair for people who may not agree with you to challenge your candidate on.

If you can't come up with a valid challenge, maybe that should be a clue that he's a candidate worthy of your vote.

I'm asking you what YOU think are valid so that we have a common ground for discussion.That is not "ammo" - that's the very basis of a mature and rational political discussion.

not only can you not criticize, you shall not even post an article that raises an issue where someone might criticize.

And as you can see by the mostly very calm and respectful discussion in this thread, this clearly wasn't either intended to be or in actuality "flamebait."

So many Clinton supporters tell me that attacks on Bernie are all just part of the game... Because they think this is a big game.

Its the same sort of excuse you often hear for Hillary's corruption.. She's just playing the game.

F*+K the game. This is not a game...

Making completely disingenuous attacks on Sanders to try and win some game you think you're playing is systematic of how out of touch Clinton and many of her supporters are.

His past stance against firearm regulations might be one

His signing of the Clinton 'crime bill' would be another

His weak stance on marriage equality in his home state back in 2006(?) would be another.

All of those I disagree with, and would have disagreed with at the time as well.

BUT, the difference is that

1 - Clinton supporters always push this 'do what's practical and realistic' meme about Hillary. So while it might be a legitimate complaint for real progressives to criticize Bernie on those issues, anyone supporting Hillary has no right at all to criticize anyone else for looking at an issue from the 'realistic' perspective.

2 - Bernie is always ahead of the curve in his "evolution' .... in all these cases he didn't wait until it was safe to have a 'contrarian' opinion, he 'evolved' ahead of the popular opinion, where Clinton doesn't lead on any issue, she simply picks the most popular side and claims it as her own ... hell, even the 'get money out of politics', she pretends to support this side of the issue all the while doing everything in her power to do exactly the opposite of what she is claiming she supports.

Bernie is not perfect, and he's going to face the same Republican roadblocks that any Democratic president would face and will surely fail more than he succeeds, but at least we know he will try, not just move his position all the way to a Republican position so they will vote in favor just to claim a 'win'.

If you think you have a valid criticism of Sanders, post it. Read the responses--Sanders' supporters will try to debunk it. Would you expect anything less?

Replace Sanders in the above with Hillary. The answer remains the same.

all the information that people are saying against Bernie and us. I wish they would see this.

You're asking Sanders supporters to offer up what we consider valid criticism for our candidate.
To what end?
Sanders as a politician is not perfect, and some of his votes do not jibe with my views in several areas, but as a candidate for POTUS, I think he is remarkable for where we are in our political discourse.

But I'll bite on the question; He is further to the right of where I would like to ultimately see this country. While I fully support is stances on equality, ultimately he is putting a bandage on a broken capitalist economic system. Until we move past this broken system we will never have racial and social justice which are design features not a flaw in capitalism.

broker. Do not use double standards.

I'm the sort of person who tells my candidate what I think they should be saying or doing differently, not their committed enemies. So what I'll say here is that I think Bernie should have more strongly condemned all who supported DOMA and that he should never have stopped for a minute.

This is one area where the Democratic party really needs to make some movement. There are clean nuclear energy proposals, using alternative nuclear fuel cycles (Thorium-based reactors). The US should be leading this research and commercial development (not China, who is currently doing so). It's a weakness that Sanders and most Democrats have. Clinton is no better, so far as I can tell, and that is before triangulation.

...or what criticism would pass whate very your test is. I'd prefer not to guess.

He's a human being. Critique away. As long as it's fair and relevant (i.e., no personal smears, distortions, lies, etc.). Same should hold true for those of us who critique Hillary.

Only Republicans form fanatical death cults around their political leaders (a la Reagan).

Or a groupie swarm: "Bernie is so...dreamy !"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Al tho, Sanders votes to fund NASA and supports scientific research and would even give NASA more to study the environment, he believes that it is more important to make sure that our children are NOT hungry.

Come on Sanders - get your priorities straight.

"Seriously, the Hillary camp wants to know. No special reason, just having a civil discussion here."

There's a gold mine of factual stuff out there that will absolutely destroy her and if she becomes the candidate I promise you that Trump will use it.

eom

by either candidate is up for examination in a fair way. calling him a communist, a sexist, or a racist is not a fair criticism. being upset that he supports drone use is a legit complaint.

saying one might not understand the intricacies of how he would pay for tuition free state college is a fair statement. i am fine with his proposal, just using it as an example.

saying women are going to hell because they don't vote for a woman is.....

well. you get the idea..

as Secretary of State.



You're welcome in advance!