What are your thoughts on Bernie Sanders and his 2020 promises? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

What are your thoughts on Bernie Sanders and his 2020 promises?
in Politics

By YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 321 Pts
joecavalry



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • searsear 101 Pts
    Sanders himself has said positions he's taken in years past that were at that time regarded as radical seem less so today as so many others have embraced such positions.

    Part of the issue is, who would the Democrat nominee run against.

    The Democrats are walking a political tightrope. In 2016 they ran on the -we're not Trump- bandwagon and lost.
    So while they may not have ruled out impeachment (Mueller's findings pending) they're also groping for a platform that might win an electoral success. I'm not sure they can.
  • I don’t believe that Bernie Sanders will win the 2020 Democratic nomination. Currently, many Democrats are Democratic-Socialists, and they may be better candidates than he is. Therefore, his chances of winning are very small.
    AlofRI
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @joecavalry

    You may be right, but I think it's too soon to tell... I was surprised at how much $$ he gathered in such a short time, the 2016 wave has not receded as much as I thought it would... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • searsear 101 Pts
    jc,
    Do you think Sanders expects to win?
    Or is it possible he thinks he can advance the political Zeitgeist simply by campaigning, attracting large crowds?

    One of the things I found interesting about Sanders' supporters in 2016, not only their vehemence, but also their youth. Is it paradoxical that the old guy would attract such young voters?

  • *Laughs*
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    Look at the people on these rallies on the background: almost all of them are little green college kids who have never had a serious job in their lives, and who are looking for a daddy who will forgive their education debt. It is pretty hard to build a winning campaign on such a weak support base.

    Yelling only gets you so much. For socialism to win in a society, you must be willing to go further, to get your hands dirty. Lenin, Mao or Castro did not just talk, they took up arms instead. That seems to be the only way for socialism to institute itself, and since the American socialists typically do not bear arms and advocate strongly for extreme gun control measures, they will not be able to make it happen.
    Zombieguy1987AmericanFurryBoyApplesauce
  • AlofRIAlofRI 116 Pts
    I like everything Bernie "wants". I want to hear more HOW than WHAT. I need him to stop saying "free". Nothing is "free". I'm FOR socialistic PAYING for what we get. If we can "everybody" pay more in taxes and get MORE for our money, I have no problem. We have to pay less in taxes than we now pay for health care plus taxes, for education plus taxes and we CAN. The big corporations  have to pay their full amount to get that. We all do. To get what he wants its going to have to be like the Three Musketeers, One for all and all for one … including the 1% that have to contribute as much as anybody else.

    In Adam Smiths book on capitalism, (1776), he wrote: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than that proportion."  That's the capitalism that was envisioned by our founders that has been corrupted by our elected officials for … gain, usually. By setting things up advantageously for those that could pay them, they've burdened the rest of us to have to make it up.

    I don't see myself voting for Bernie though I believe in what he wants to do. I'll vote for someone who doesn't use the word "free" as often.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • searsear 101 Pts
    "I like everything Bernie "wants". I want to hear more HOW" AR
    I was born in '54.
    In the '50's I often heard such expressions as: "It's a free country." And U.S. citizens were admired for our rugged individualism & self-reliance.

    But our governments aren't strengthening us that way, enabling us to be more self-reliant.
    Instead we're becoming ever more dependent, less self-reliant.

    Even if benevolently intended, I'm alarmed by the trend. And further, with rare exception, I'm not sure it makes sense for government to administer health care. I think government should regulate, not administer it.

    "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." Thomas Jefferson


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    @sear

    This trend has started during Wilson's presidency, when the word "freedom" suddenly stopped including "financial freedom". The problem with this is that the financial freedom is one of the core foundations of all other freedoms. If people are not financially free, then all of their other freedoms can be easily taken away without them being able to fund their protection.

    And this is what has been happening. Wilson started small and introduced, if I remember correctly, a global federal tax of 2% or 3%. Even that was enough for his popularity to drop like a meteorite. But he was great at getting the media to side with him, through both bribes and threats (it is a miracle that his proposition to reframe the 1st Amendment was stopped in its tracks by the other two governmental branches - otherwise he would easily become a full-on dictator). And that economically fallacious narrative that he laid down had been gaining traction slowly. And then the next economical recession occurred, suddenly, instead of suffering through it and pass, the government decided to take drastic measures to try to stop it - which led to the Great Depression.

    It is not random that the timeline in which Wilson started pushing his narrative through, and the one in which Leninists took over in Russia, coincided. That reactionist philosophy supporting returning back to feudal times, that started gaining traction in early XX century, is still alive and well. The Independence War was won, but did anyone really think that that old feudal-monarchic order that had existed for many millennia would just happily walk away? Of course not. And this "democratic socialism", so-called, is merely a manifestation of that.

    Bernie in particular hardly has a chance to succeed. But there is a lot of people with much more mild, but qualitatively similar, views that still have a chance. Obama was one of them, for example. I do not think a Democratic president has a real shot at the 2020 election (unless Bloomberg, who is planning to be a Democrat, but will be such only by name, decides to run for president), but at the 2024 election - who knows?

    It seems that the fall of Soviet Union made people overly complacent. No longer having an obvious real socialist enemy trying to force its views on everyone, people started taking a second look on those ideas. Not realising that the worst enemy does not come from the outside, but the inside. Even in 70-s Bernie was nothing more than a marginal activists appealing to the lowest common denominator. Now Harvard students cheer for him. This is not a good trend, but not unexpected.
    History occurs in cycles. No idea never truly wins. The ideas of freedom were winning for a while, but there was bound to come a time when the ideas of control would take over once again. Freedom will win over again later, maybe in 10-15 years, or maybe in 200-300 years. Hard to say.

    What I think will realistically happen is that the technological evolution will naturally kill off the ideologies based on control. You simply cannot control a naturally arising decentralised system in the world of mobile computers and online interaction.
    Then again, the Chinese scenario also possible, when this very technology is used exactly to exhibit an untold degree of control upon people's lives. We shall see.
  • searsear 101 Pts
    MC,
    Perhaps you imagine the Dems at disadvantage in 2020 due to Republican incumbency. I don't know what Mueller has on Trump. But it seems there's something, as it seems there've been dozens of indictments so far, and a guilty plea or two as well.
    Which means Dem. X would be running against President Pence. That's a two-edged sword. Pence has his strong suit. But there are some that are strongly opposed against him, LGBT etc.

    As far as Cold War, I've suspected there were other things tilting some toward things like socialized medicine. For one, Denmark's "happiness quotient".
    But such comparison lends itself to simple quantifiable analysis.
    There are some nations that have socialized medicine, some even "single payer".
     - Their per capita healthcare costs are lower. And
     - their healthcare outcomes are as good, or better.

    So bottom line, we're paying more for less. And many in the U.S. want a bargain. Why pay retail when we can pay wholesale? I got the impression that was the concept behind Obamacare. Obamacare isn't the best system on Earth. But some consider it an improvement over what it replaced.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
    The best part of Bernie's speech, in fact the only part that made any sense, was when he thanked his family for their support.  The rest drifted between idiocy and lunacy. 
  • AlofRIAlofRI 116 Pts
    @sear I was born in 1937. I also heard the same. In the 50's we had corporations that paid a tax rate around 90% … they STILL got richer. We had trade unions that gave those "rugged, self reliant individuals" a living wage, great (as it could be, then), health care, a chance to put some money away for a "rainy day". Mothers "could" stay home with the kids while the father made a living wage. Things have changed. The ones with most of our money don't use that money to create good paying jobs anymore, they buy back their own stock to make it more valuable, capitalists like Amazon take their money and pay U.S. about 1% in taxes (Not what Trump says they pay).

    The "rugged, self reliant individuals" today want what was a years pay then, each day, or at least "week". Did you hear prices were going up because there's a shortage of people to drive trucks?? If you can't make a great living with your fingertips today, the once "rugged, self reliant individuals" don't want to do it.

    I was forced to retire at 65 (company policy). I was setting up my own independent business, doing the same work, when I blew my Quad going to my office downstairs to set up my first job. That made me no longer capable of doing that work. Being one of the aforementioned "individuals", I got another job and retired at 75. (Because I HAD to.)

    Remember the GOP platform back in those 50's,(56)?? According to Snopes Fact Check it was:

    1. Provide federal assistance to lo-income families
    2. Protect SS, Provide asylum for refugees
    3. Extend minimum wage
    4. Improve unemployment benefits to cover more people
    5. Strengthen labor laws so workers can easily join unions
    6. Assure equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex

    Now, the GOP wants to protect those who want the opposite and keep them from having to pay the taxes that could help those aforementioned individuals GET those 6 things that might make it easier to be "self reliant".
    You GO, Bernie, get what you can get! We'll HAVE to pay, one way or the other, but it may make it worth being self reliant, again.
    Plaffelvohfensear
  • piloteerpiloteer 244 Pts
    I'd vote for him just to get rid of the nub that some people call the president.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
    piloteer said:
    I'd vote for him just to get rid of the nub that some people call the president.

    We already did get rid of the nub that some people call the president.  He packed his bags in 2016.
    AlofRI
  • searsear 101 Pts
    AR,
    Goldwater wouldn't be happy.
    AlofRI
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    edited March 5
    @piloteer

    It is a very strange thing to do, to vote for someone who vows to dismantle the very foundation of the US economy in favor of something that has proven again and again to be a failed system - just to get rid of one person in the White House.

    I can understand the momentary frustration (I myself am not particularly amazed by the job of our current dear president), but it hardly is a valid ground for giving up on everything and doing something with the only goal of shaking things up.

    People voted for Trump exactly for the same reason: just to get rid of the ruling class they disliked, regardless of in favor of what. I do not think it wise to make the same mistake twice.

    Both Sanders and Trump are poor candidates for being the country's CEO. Substituting one for another is not going to solve any problems. Perhaps it is a good idea to walk outside the circle of these yelling populists and look at serious candidates who understand economics and politics?
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen
  • @MayCaesar
    Perhaps it is a good idea to walk outside the circle of these yelling populists and look at serious candidates who understand economics and politics?
    I would tend to agree in principle, but there is a problem in practice... As with Religion, Economics and Politics nowadays, are plagued with dogmatism across the spectrum... That is the core problem, whether it comes from the left or the right in my opinion... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @MayCaesar

    I agree with your first paragraph in post numero uno
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • piloteerpiloteer 244 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I don't disagree with everything you say, but you may misunderstand my reasoning here. Must we agree with everything a candidate for President is proposing? Right now, I'd say Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate for President that's actually running. If Joe Biden threw his hat in, I wouldn't consider voting for him, even if it was assured he would get the nomination. I don't like Biden's brand of politics, and I wouldn't support him just to oust our current "president".


    Sanders stands alone among the Dems. I very much dislike the "Nordic" system he would try to push, but there are many other things I agree with him on. Environmental issues is the first that comes to mind here. I believe Sanders would invest in renewable energy, which I'm not opposed to. One could argue that public funds shouldn't be used in that manner, but the fact is, it already is used in that manner. We as taxpayers are constantly bailing out the coal industry and the natural gas industry and the nuclear energy industry, and the only reason nobody makes a fuss about it is we believe that it needs to happen that way. Eventually, every household will be able to produce all its own energy, but the only way to implement that is through research and investments in renewable energy. I don't see why we can't all be off the grid eventually. 

    I also agree with his views on universal health care. The medical sector is one thing I do believe the government should have more oversight on. Since the time I was born (circa 1980) up to now, the medical community has made mind boggling strides. In that same time period, public investment in health care has also increased dramatically. I don't think that coincidental. The ultimate goal of health care and human services should be to cure death. That's unlikely, but it should still strive for that, but for that to happen, public investment is needed. I don't buy into the idea of, your time is your time, and that's all you get. I wanna live forever!!! One could argue that there should be a way to opt out of paying high insurance and health care prices, but in my mind, that would mean those people either pay for every medical need up front, or not get medical attention at all. That's not really a feasible scenario though.

    I've not seen or heard of a person with a more "common sense" approach to gun laws. He's not an extremist on either side of the gun debate. He does oppose assault weapons, but he proudly voted against a bill that would make it legal to sue gun manufacturing companies for crimes that were committed by their products. He said, you can't sue a hammer maker if someone uses one to kill somebody, why should we be suing gun makers? He says that type of legislation is not a common sense approach, and that's what we need. 

    I agree with him on abortion rights. I'll leave my description out of this one though.

    For the most part, I agree with him on on foreign policy. I disagree that the US should be heavily involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but he even takes a middle stance on that issue too. He's criticized trump for supporting Saudi Arabia and their war efforts in Yemen, which I agree the US should not be involved in, and we shouldn't support Saudi Arabia on it either. 

    He's also against the NSA using surveillance on US citizens, which I agree with him there. SNOWDEN IS A HERO!!

    He did vote for a bill which gives states the right to require labels on products with GMO. I can't say I agree with him on that one. I don't think GMO's are bad, and that requirement will raise the cost of goods, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer. I don't think he's specifically against GMO's, but I feel he made the wrong choice on that bill.

    So, even though I strongly disagree Sanders on economics, I do like his stance on most other things. And since he's the only one I disagree with the least, and he is actually running, I do consider him my favorite for now. But that doesn't mean someone cooler can't come along and convince me. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    @piloteer

    Economics is a pretty big deal, if not the number 1 deal. When a person advocates for socialist policies, it is pretty hard to shrug it away and say, "But I do not have to agree with him on everything". We did not have to agree with Hitler or Stalin on everything either, but the things we disagreed with them on were significant enough shake our heads and say, "Enough is enough".

    Bernie does not understand how the Nordic model works. He wants to build an actual socialism; do not fool yourself by his convenient label "democratic socialism" and look at the actual policies he is proposing. He does not want to build Denmark or Sweden, despite what he claims; he wants to build Venezuela or Cuba. Denmark and Sweden, for the most part, leave their enterpreneurs alone, as long as they pay their taxes; Bernie on the other hand wants to tell them how to run their businesses.

    I would personally benefit from his presidency due to the immigration laws he is going to push through. At the same time, if it came to that, I would not want to stay here in any case. I have lived in socialist countries enough to know that this route always leads to one place. If socialists get a strong foothold in the US, I will seek my fortune elsewhere. There is plenty of awesome countries in the world, and one of them falling would not make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

    I am not going to tell you how you should vote. Just realise that friendships with populists never end well, and you agreeing with them on something and ignoring everything else is exactly what they count on, and exactly how they destroy nations.

    To anyone with common sense someone calling themselves "socialist" should raise a very large red flag (pun unintended). "We do not have to agree with everything they are proposing" is a strange way to put it in such a situation.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 183 Pts
    edited March 6
    @MayCaesar said:
    Look at the people on these rallies on the background: almost all of them are little green college kids who have never had a serious job in their lives, and who are looking for a daddy who will forgive their education debt. It is pretty hard to build a winning campaign on such a weak support base.

    Yelling only gets you so much. For socialism to win in a society, you must be willing to go further, to get your hands dirty. Lenin, Mao or Castro did not just talk, they took up arms instead. That seems to be the only way for socialism to institute itself, and since the American socialists typically do not bear arms and advocate strongly for extreme gun control measures, they will not be able to make it happen.
    Statistics say you're right about most being green college kids, who may never have held a "serious" job in their lives also quite probable... But they were (most probably still are) getting an education that would give them access to those "serious" jobs in the first place because otherwise they would be like the 65% who don't even have a college degree... :/  

    Now, are they looking for their daddy to "forgive" their education debt? Maybe, I mean it's quite possible out of the "LFT" crowd out there, but couldn't it be argued that it's a father's duty to educate his children or at least provide the means to get educated properly?   :neutral:

    I definitely agree that yelling gets you so much, and that for any system to impose itself on society, it must get dirty... Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Monarchy, Religion, all come on top dirty, they just do... :neutral: 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    edited March 6
    @Plaffelvohfen

    It could be argued, but it would be a very impractical notion. The only one who has a duty to help the person is that very person; everyone else is in this for themselves, one way or another.

    I am about to receive my 4th degree, and will immediately be starting working on my 5th one. Nobody has ever paid a dime for my education: not the government, not my parents, not even charity organisations. I received a few private fellowships through hard work that paid for everything, and a decent stipend on top of it.
    I would even argue that about 95% of my success in my studies was a result of working on my own, rather than going through the courses. Working at home in my free time, studying things before bed, reading math books sometimes even while walking. When many other people watched Netflix or drank beer in a bar, I was studying science, doing physical exercises or learning art.

    Anyone can do that, and they do not need their parents to help them with that; not everyone does, however, because it is not easy, and many people prefer to choose an easier way in life. People invest into something, do not work hard enough to make that investment bring a positive return, and then they start asking others to help them. And right then a guy comes in and says, "I am going to forgive all of your education loans!" Never mind the fact that the entire bank system would collapse instantly were this to happen; the very fact that someone promises to fix those people's mistakes for them is enough to make one of the worst presidential candidates possible appealing.

    All these "We must all work towards the collective good!" ideologies - Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Nationalism, etc. - target a very particular group of people. People who want to have their problems solved by someone else, who want to lay on the couch doing nothing and have golden nuggets dropping around them. All sorts of populist dictators in all times relied on this type of crowd to get them into power, and Bernie is no different. Science contradicts nearly every his view; all reputable economists say that his economical ideas are abysmal - but when did rigorous science ever stop people from following shamans, priests and other charlatans? ;) This is just how humanity is, has always been and will likely always be. We tend to put emotions before facts. Emotions warm us at night, while facts often send shivers down our spines. You cannot blame people for choosing the former, even if in the long term it will make them only ever colder.
  • searsear 101 Pts
    I doubt Sanders will get the Dem nom,

    UNLESS !!

    polling at the time says Sanders has a chance to win the general. I consider that an unlikely scenario.
  • piloteerpiloteer 244 Pts
    @sear

    Sanders has a pretty big fan base, even among centrist Dems. All the other candidates need to build their base. I also wonder how many people there were who would have voted for Sanders, but instead voted for Trump, because they really disliked Hillary. The only thing that may stop Sanders is if Joe Biden ran.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 183 Pts
    edited March 6
    @piloteer

    One could argue that public funds shouldn't be used in that manner, but the fact is, it already is used in that manner. We as taxpayers are constantly bailing out the coal industry and the natural gas industry and the nuclear energy industry,
    It shows that we're not in an actual Capitalist system, that this notion is very romanticized... It's more state-capitalism really. The state has always been crucial to the development and extension of the capitalist system. Only the state can invest in fundamental research, without anything more than "possible" profits on an horizon of 30-50 years, the private sector just can't, and mostly don't want to, profits are for NOW, not tomorrow...

    How much is spent in R&D per year in the US Military? The public pays the cost in many ways, university labs, NASA, enormous subsidies in all major sectors of the economy; Agriculture, Energy, Finance, they're all heavily subsidized and always have been... We, collectively, invest massively, but we do not harvest any profits as those are privatized...

    So what we have right now, is socialized costs but privatized profits, this is not Capitalism...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 244 Pts
    edited March 6
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Infrastructure is not something that is taken on by the private sector usually. Even in a capitalist system, infrastructure will fall on the taxpayers. I can't say I'm absolutely sure, but I'm willing to bet that the federal government sells bonds to take on these measures. On the surface, that seems like corruption, but the truth is, because of how the system of bonds works, in the end it actually helps to ease some of the burden on taxpayers. Did you know the federal government can lend itself money? It actually charges itself interest, and with a system of money exchange within the federal government, it actually makes money off itself, because of the interest. Obviously, energy companies are private businesses, but just like the airline industry, they're both considered important to national security, so they kind of are grouped in with infrastructure. Really, no truly capitalist state could function without public investment in infrastructure. But, you're right, the US is no longer a capitalist country.
  • piloteerpiloteer 244 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Hitler????? Stalin???? REALLY?!?!?! There's some stark differences between the two most evil dictators the world has ever known, and Bernie Sanders. The first obvious thing that comes to mind is that Bernie Sanders is so Jewish. That wouldn't go over well with at least one of the other guys you mentioned, but probably both. Next, Bernie Sanders promotes peace, he's an antiwar activist, who has openly admitted publicly his disdain for Henry Kissinger, and he criticized Hillary Clinton for receiving advice from Kissinger during her 2016 election bid. I loath Kissinger too. And then there's the fact that Bernie Sanders supports free speech rights, which neither of the two guys at the top of this paragraph were all that cool with. He called on college students to stop threatening people with dissenting views on college campuses. He's a democrat, which distances himself even further from the demons. And last but not least, he wears glasses and has white hair.

    To be honest, there is no candidate that really covers my political views. I'm a progressive libertarian. Although there is a progressive libertarian party, I think those people are like the crazy cat lady that lives down the street. I know you know who I'm talking about, we all have one of those in our neighborhood. Although I vehemently disagree with Sanders on anything economic, I could still have a clear conscience voting for him, because I could vote for representatives and Congress men/women that I know would oppose Sanders on his economic policies. I had to vote for Gary Johnson in 2016, and I disagree with his stances more than I do Sanders. Bernie Sanders is considered a libertarian. Albeit, a social libertarian. That's why he looks the most promising to me. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
  • searsear 101 Pts
    "voted for Trump, because they really disliked Hillary." pe

    Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
    Candidly I doubt Trump will complete 4 years in office, not because the Democrats don't like him, but because Mueller is a Republican. Trump is done-for, I suspect. Viva President Pence?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
    sear said:
    "voted for Trump, because they really disliked Hillary." pe

    Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
    Candidly I doubt Trump will complete 4 years in office, not because the Democrats don't like him, but because Mueller is a Republican. Trump is done-for, I suspect. Viva President Pence?

    You don't really believe Mueller is going to come up with anything, do you??  He hasn't come up with anything pertinent in 2 years, what in the world would cause you to believe he's just holding on to it?  And Mueller is NOT Republican.  He's establishment and never-Trump, no doubt worried that his corruption will come to light with Trump in office, but not Republican.
  • searsear 101 Pts
    "You don't really believe Mueller is going to come up with anything, do you??" Ch

    The more sensible question:
    whether Mueller will come up with any more. How many indictments & or guilty pleas has Mueller already gotten? Dozens?

    "He hasn't come up with anything pertinent in 2 years, what in the world would cause you to believe he's just holding on to it? " Ch

    Professionalism.
    A slipshod operator may be more prone to running a leaky operation. Mueller's operation has here to fore been impressively leak-free.
    If he runs his operation this well, why would we assume he's got nothing?

    "And Mueller is NOT Republican." Ch

    I thought the first president that selected him was Republican.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1030 Pts
    sear said:
    "You don't really believe Mueller is going to come up with anything, do you??" Ch

    The more sensible question:
    whether Mueller will come up with any more. How many indictments & or guilty pleas has Mueller already gotten? Dozens?


    ...and how many of those indictments or pleas have been pertinent to the investigation?  ZERO.  He has found NOTHING linking Trump to the Russians during the 2016 campaign; a lot of evidence connecting Hillary to Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election, but NOTHING pointing at Trump.

    "He hasn't come up with anything pertinent in 2 years, what in the world would cause you to believe he's just holding on to it? " Ch

    Professionalism.
    A slipshod operator may be more prone to running a leaky operation. Mueller's operation has here to fore been impressively leak-free.
    If he runs his operation this well, why would we assume he's got nothing?

    LOL, Mueller and professionalism don't go together ... at all.  A prosecutor who leaves people sit in jail who he KNOWS are innocent of the crime is as far from professional as anyone can get.  He's a loyal Establishment foot-soldier, nothing more.

    Mueller's investigation has been leaking like a sieve for the entire duration.  I suppose you believe it was just a coincidence that CNN just happened to set up 15 mins before the Stone raid. 

    "And Mueller is NOT Republican." Ch

    I thought the first president that selected him was Republican.

    The first president that selected him was Establishment.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch