Bernie Sanders in Phoenix: Senator encourages supporters to fight for change, riles opponents

[ehrnst]

129. Let's unpack this:

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2018, 09:10 AM - Edit history (4)

You listed two (2) instances of where Democrats "supported GOP policies" "resonated" with you in response to my question of where Democrats were "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be) - which is what you agree with BS about. So yes, you listed two (2).

And correct, you did not answer why you thought Democrats "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be). Now you finally have partially answered the question:

"I think the Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy protections for credit cards were motivated by big donors." Can you tell me which "big donors" are "motivating" - whatever that means (motivating with what? instructions. encourament, threats?). Because that is a very specific accusation, and you should have specific evidence of who you are referring to. And what about the Iraq War resolution? Why do you think that Dems were "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be) in the support of that support of a GOP policy? Donors?

I gave you a long list of instances where BS "supported GOP policies," and asked you those "resonated with you" as much as the two instances where Dems voted with GOP policies. What or who do you think motivated those votes?

You answered that the two that you listed were "two of the worst things that we enabled in the 21st century" but never address the list of those (including voting to fund the Iraq War, and against increased education funding) as being negative at all.

Continuing to fund the Iraq war doesn't count as "enabling" one of the "worst" things you consider to have been enabled in the 21st century" or something you consider "weak or lazy" (not as strong as they should be)?

Why? Because BS voted yes it?

That indicates a cognitive dissonance, not being asked to explain the contradictions in your posts.

I think that owning it - just saying that you believe no matter what BS does or says, he is always correct, and should always be given the benefit of the doubt that his position and opinion are in the best interests of the country, and disagreeing with him is wrong - would be less contradictory.

I myself am much more inclined to first see if someone aligns with experts on a particular topic, look at their background on the topic, and seen if there is some collective political wisdom on it that they are tapping into before considering them to be on the right track. A candidate identifying as a Democrat answers many questions for me about them, because they have committed to the goals of the platform. And do they have the respect of their peers? I believe that a reasonable person can change their mind on something when they get more data. I have agreed with positions that politicians take, and disagree with others. There is no "north star" in my mind when it comes to individual polticians, just some I trust more on certain issues than others - I elect them to spend their workday immersed in those issues in a way that I can't be. When a politician talks about other progressive politicians in terms of "Where they are right is...." as opposed to "Where I agree with them is..." they lose me. I understand that sort of "I am right and everyone who doesn't agree is corrupt" position appeals to many people as "unshakeable and constant" but not me. I have evolved on topics with new information, and I would hope our leaders do too.