Do you support Bernie Sanders for POTUS? - 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.


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!

Do you support Bernie Sanders for POTUS?
in Politics

By YeshuaRedeemedYeshuaRedeemed 362 Pts
i do. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I'm relatively unversed in politics, being only 15 years old, but there is nothing about his campaign that I object to that I have seen.
    AlofRIBryceSloan
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • @K_Michael My adice is to research individual issues. I have been debating and researching bsince I was 13 years old. Please give yourself time to form your own beliefs. :)
    K_Michael
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 9
    There may be worse candidates than Bernie Sanders in the upcoming election, but I am not aware of them. I do not support anyone, but I would not be terribly sad to see Bloomberg, Schultz or Rand Paul win the election.

    Of course, when we put people like Sanders or Warren into the equation, then I might as well be glad to see Trump win again.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 100 Pts
    No.

    While I think Bernie is a good man, he would be a terrible president for America.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I like that he's still in the political arena, as a pole of attraction firmly anchored in the left field, which I hope will recenter the US a bit, but I'm not convinced he's the best one to "lead", he may be better as a "mentor" so to speak...  But eh, I'll take anyone, Hell any "thing" over Trump, so there's that... ;)  
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • searsear 104 Pts
    In the 2016 race, Sanders reportedly drew the largest crowds, despite Sanders reportedly being the oldest candidate.

     AND !!

    Many of Sanders' most strident supporters were young, some were citizens that hadn't voted before. Ironic that the youngest voters would support the oldest candidate?

    Sanders observes, some of the positions he took deemed radical in 2016 seem more main-stream now. Meaning, Sanders isn't bending to the crowd, but the crowd is bending to him.

    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson



    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 179 Pts
    No, not yet. I have to hear the rest of them. I don't expect to vote for him, but, I hope he steers people away from the direction Washington is being driven today! He has Ideas we NEED, but I don't believe he's the man to implement them. Most of them are too far away to rush, we need to work up to them. He, like me, doesn't have that much time. For the next decade we need someone "like" Bill Clinton to balance the budget and get our friends back! Get the world working together.

    We may never make it. Trump has given Putin what he wanted, an excuse to go big on nukes! A chance to be the most powerful leader in the world. We need what Bernie is after, but, we have bigger problems than paying for that. We need a leader that works WITH, and FOR the rest of the world. We are back on a precipice and we need a leader with stamina, as well as common sense. Bernie's a good man but not for NOW.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    edited March 19
    Bernie Sanders and his individual political philosophies, are only suitable towards himself, and to those whom he can convince to feed into his political philosophy?

    If his political philosophy only benefits some of the United States, and not the entirety of the country, then his philosophies will only hamper the country, and the United States citizens deserve better than what he can philosophically offer.

    The same thing with Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and so on.

    The country deserves better, than to have  some of the political representatives, who are Democrats, or Democratic Socialists trying to manipulate, persuade, coax, or influence, some of the voting public with their individual political philosophies that benefit their individual fan bases, instead of the country as a whole.

    Some of them can try to pander to some of the public with their "Privilege Rhetoric" talking points in front a news anchors news camera, as they may choose to?
    (The above action, made the individual look sad, and desperate, while being interviewed.)

    While at the same time, this individual pulled in 6 million plus dollars in campaign donations?

    Apparently pandering to the public, is a nifty way to get campaign funds out of the pockets of a newly developing fan base, by downplaying their individual privilege rhetoric talking points?

    So while I don't support Bernie Sanders for POTUS, I'll support the individual candidate, who will benefit the country the most as much as possible.

    Pro Border barrier, and pro security, (pro family, meaning they are pro security for the US citizens, and they don't have any issues over the Border barrier being built where it be physically constructed?)

  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Pro Border barrier, and pro security, (pro family" TD

     a) If I weren't interested in U.S. national security I wouldn't be an honorably discharged United States military veteran.

     b) According to multiple study results I've read reports of, most illegal aliens in the U.S. entered the U.S. through our airports or sea ports. Then they over-stayed their visas.

     c) We already have many miles of security on that border, and almost none on our Northern border.

     d) If we spend the $Billions Trump wants to spend, if we get the coast to coast wall Trump originally described, it would be easier of those wishing to enter, instead of paying $Thousands to a coyote, a guide to lead them through the desert, they may only spend $Hundreds for an airplane ticket to Canada, and then stroll across the thousands of miles of completely unguarded Northern border.

     e) "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower
     News flash: Russia is a greater threat to the U.S. than Guatemala is.

     f) Trump has declared the need for his wall a crisis. But the stats I've read say the current border security issue is half of what it was over a decade ago. But his wall isn't really about U.S. national security. It's about bringing jobs to States he would hope to win if he's on the ballot in 2020. I doubt he will be. Trump may be a slime-ball New York real estate shyster. But even hitting below the belt Trump is no match for Mueller, a technician of logic and discipline.
    I don't know who the GOP will nominate in 2020. I doubt it'll be Trump.

     g) "pro-family"?! The Republicans ?! Trump ? Know what the difference between a chick pea and a garbanzo bean is? Trump never had a garbanzo bean on his face.
  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    edited March 19
    @sear

    Instead of taking the easy road, and hounding Trump and the Republicans, how about some talking points that benefit the country as a whole, instead of what your individual talking points are compromised of?

    The border is 2000 plus miles wide, and there are roughly only 600 plus miles of a border barrier that have been built so far.

    The border barrier should have been built, a long time ago, and on some of the other Presidents watches, like Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Where is your individual evidence to support this statement from you, other than your individual opinion?

    "Trump has given Putin what he wanted, an excuse to go big on nukes!"

    What legitimate evidence do you have?

    And what did Bill Clinton do that was so grand? NAFTA? 

    "For the next decade we need someone "like" Bill Clinton to balance the budget and get our friends back! Get the world working together."

    The former POTUS, was impeached.

    So I'm wondering how your individual talking points in regards to Clinton are supposed to have any sort of legs at all, when he basically swept his own political legs from underneath of himself, tackling his own Presidency with his impeachment? 



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1075 Pts
    sear said:

     b) According to multiple study results I've read reports of, most illegal aliens in the U.S. entered the U.S. through our airports or sea ports. Then they over-stayed their visas.
    If they have a visa, they've already been vetted; they're not criminals, they aren't carrying 3rd world diseases.  They aren't anywhere near as much of a problem as the illegals who walk across the border.

     c) We already have many miles of security on that border, and almost none on our Northern border.
    Canadians aren't streaming across our Northern border, they ARE coming across our Southern border in droves. 

     d) If we spend the $Billions Trump wants to spend, if we get the coast to coast wall Trump originally described, it would be easier of those wishing to enter, instead of paying $Thousands to a coyote, a guide to lead them through the desert, they may only spend $Hundreds for an airplane ticket to Canada, and then stroll across the thousands of miles of completely unguarded Northern border.
    In order for illegals to board a plane to get to Canada, they need a visa, which means they need to be screened. We can deal with the Northern border If illegals coming across it ever becomes a problem.

     f) Trump has declared the need for his wall a crisis. But the stats I've read say the current border security issue is half of what it was over a decade ago. But his wall isn't really about U.S. national security. It's about bringing jobs to States he would hope to win if he's on the ballot in 2020. I doubt he will be. Trump may be a slime-ball New York real estate shyster. But even hitting below the belt Trump is no match for Mueller, a technician of logic and discipline.
    I don't know who the GOP will nominate in 2020. I doubt it'll be Trump.
    ROFL, you still think Mueller is going to come up with something about Trump?!?  Worse yet, You really think that POS Mueller is disciplined???  If by disciplined you mean shamelessly self-serving you ave a point.  Mueller should have been shamed out of the legal profession in 2001 when it was proven that he had four people locked up for decades for crimes he KNEW they were innocent of.  Two of them DIED IN JAIL.  That little stunt cost the DOJ (AKA us taxpayers) $100 Million. 
     g) "pro-family"?! The Republicans ?! Trump ? Know what the difference between a chick pea and a garbanzo bean is? Trump never had a garbanzo bean on his face.
    He could be worse.  We've had a LOT worse, just look at the 0bama years.

  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Sharing your individual opinions with the rest of this forum:

    Courtesy of AIorRI:

    "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally."
    Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984

    "There were far more coming across the border then, and a smaller percentage of women and children. Today's "invasion" is a farce, a piece of propaganda that has been repeated over and over until it has become "fact" … if one believes it … at Hermann Goering said it would. Reagan ALSO completely supported the Brady Bill on gun control. He wouldn't, likely, give much support to this Party of Trump. 
    The GOP no longer exists. In it's place is the POT … with a LOT of bad stuff in it."

    Go ahead, and use a former POTUS to platform your individual political ideology with? 

    Two points:

    One; You can't say that Reagan would have done anything, because your opinion says so, how do you know if he wouldn't give support to Trump?

    Did you interview Reagan to get that thought from him? 

    Second: "The GOP no longer exists. It's in it's POT, with a lot of bad stuff in it."

    Where did you get this unofficial sound bite from? 

    From one of the various news media outlet sources?

    Or maybe you created it, from the depths of your individual opinion? 


  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    edited March 19
    I support any Political Representative, who isn't in a sense, or with a probable likelihood, going to place the 11-22 million illegal aliens, or immigrants, above the rest of the law abiding citizens of the US, via the sanctuary cities, or any of the rest of the cities in the United States for that matter.

    Hasn't that in a sense, what has been happening, with the various sanctuary cities?
    How do they go about giving those millions of illegal aliens, or immigrants sanctuary, in the face of the Federal laws, for how many years now? 

    How does a political representative go about doing the above, without sacrificing some of the laws of the United States by doing just that, or by sacrificing the safety of the millions of lawful US citizens, who are living in the same cities, where those illegal aliens, or immigrants are getting sanctuary in? 

    Freedom should be viewed as standard of life, and should be treated with a fair and equal treatment by all of the citizens of the US, and if the some of the Democrats, or some of the Democratic Socialists have a problem with that, then leave the United States alone, and maybe migrate to another country where the socialistic ideals of that said country, will welcome those Democratic, and Democratic Socialists followers with their open arms, to embrace you, as you wished the United States to do unfairly, and unequally, at your behest, to change for your Democratic, and Democratic Socialist follower selves? 

    The US deserves better, and Socialism isn't the answer, along with the apparent mutual pandering game, that appears to be being played between some of the Democratic Socialist political representatives, and their Socialists followers, or fanbase? 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 450 Pts
    edited March 19
    Absolutely not. I understand we are in the midst of the Democratic "tea party" but we don't need to go the same route of polarization as Republicans, but given the amount of "Burnie Bros" in 2016 it's probably a futile effort to avoid more polarization.

    Personally my vote has been won over by Pete Buttigieg until another candidate can prove more attractive (unlikely) or he is eliminated from the race (very likely).

    Pete is a very smart person, he answers questions with yes or no, something many politicians are deathly afraid of doing. He offers concrete descriptions to what his goals are including details and statistics. You almost never see that in politics.

    For example he wants to expand the supreme Court to 15, with 10 judges being nominated by presidents with the last 5 only getting appointed via unanimous confirmation of the other 10 judges. I love this idea, I think it would become very unlikely that the court could ever be politicized to the left or right, save for one party getting all 10 of the presidential nominations. Currently one party getting 5 nominations can potentially swing the court, this makes a president swinging the court far more unlikely. If this happened under his administration and he got a liberal judge in the court would then be 5-5 if Kennedy returned to his more conservative views and gave up the swing vote, rendering the votes of the 5 justices appointed unanimously to be more important than any presidentially appointed Justice. Yes this would be to pull the court away from it's current right leanings but we already know the right doesn't want the court to be left leaning via the invocation of the Biden rule under Obama followed by the nuclear option under Trump. I see this as a neutral middle ground.

    However my views are biased towards Pete as he is 37 and LGBT, we have far more in common than I do with any other candidate. He has more executive governing experience than Pence and more military experience than any president since H.W. however since the most people he has ever governed is the city of South Bend, combined with his age, I see him as the underdog for the nomination. On a positive note at least good inclusion in the debates will put pressure on other candidates to actually flush out their plans and to give direct answers to questions. The one non-clear answer he gives is his position on the political spectrum. The majority of people in South Bend voted for Obama, him, Trump, and Pence as governor. He doesn't believe the old left right center spectrum developed in post revolutionary France is adequate to describe people's views in the modern world anymore, which this again I agree with him on and see more of a top to bottom spectrum via wealth and social status as more accurate but that is another can of worms that can't really be discussed here.

    So no I don't support Burnie.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @WordsMatter

    Darn... Never heard of Buttigieg...  :/  Ok, I'm Canadian but still, how come I had to hear about him, here of all places?? He should really work on his social-media skills. But I really like the idea (judge nomination process), it tackles the pernicious partisanship that plagues the system. Just for that, it would be welcome... 

    Looks like I've got some searching & reading to do... thx! ;)  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen because he is young and governs less people than some Congressional districts is why you haven't heard of him, but his cnn town hall last SXSW got him a lot of attention. I love how judicial idea but he even admits there are other ideas out there that could be better than his. I love the process of present a specific idea then aknowledge that there are other options. As opposed to Warren's recent town hall where her response to what to do with healthcare was just "I sponsored a lot of different plans and there are many ways to approach this but I have no specific stance myself."

    I'm ready for the political torch to finally be passed down to a younger generation, and I'm cool with 37 years old being the new bearer. I highly recommend watching his CNN town hall from a couple weeks ago to see just how articulate he is. He also did a segment on Fox news but I have yet to see it.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Instead of taking the easy road, and hounding Trump and the Republicans, how about some talking points that benefit the country" TD

    You mean like the 7 I already posted?
    Instead of taking the easy road, and presuming to instruct me on posting style, how about you addressing the substance of my post, or making some other comment relevant to the topic?

    "If they have a visa, they've already been vetted; they're not criminals," Cd

    Until they over-stay their visa. Then they are.
    If you can quote a legitimate scientific study that demonstrates illegal aliens that enter across the border are statistically significantly more problematic than those that enter through air or sea ports, then I'll assume you're merely confirming your own bias.

    "Canadians aren't streaming across our Northern border, they ARE coming across our Southern border in droves. " Cd

    True, but irrelevant.
    Crooks may not use the back door while the front door is open. Lock and bolt the front door, the crooks walk around and use the back door instead.
    If you want to blow $Billions on a "wall", magnificent.
    If you wish to pretend that once $spent, once the "wall" is complete that that will solve some extant U.S. problem, then your ignorance is showing.

    "In order for illegals to board a plane to get to Canada, they need a visa, which means they need to be screened" Cd

    And you think Canada screens as well as the U.S.?
    You're willing to surrender our immigration standards to whatever Canada comes up with?

    "He could be worse.  We've had a LOT worse, just look at the 0bama years." Cd

    a) it is the obvious comparison.

    b) How many wives has Trump had? Obama had only one, and he's still got her.

    c) Michelle didn't plagiarize Melania's speech. Melania plagiarized Michelle's. 

    d) Obama's 8 year presidency was impressively scandal free. No Iran / Contra. No losing thousands to an attack from Saudi terrorists, and then invading and occupying Iraq in reaction. "No drama Obama". The opposite of Trump's style. Bush said -wanted dead or alive-, and came up empty. Obama kept his mouth shut, waxed UBL, and dropped the remains in the ocean. We've had worse presidents than Obama. Matter of fact, we've got one right now!

  • TKDBTKDB 137 Pts
    @sear

    "d) Obama's 8 year presidency was impressively scandal free. No Iran / Contra. No losing thousands to an attack from Saudi terrorists, and then invading and occupying Iraq in reaction. "No drama Obama". The opposite of Trump's style. Bush said -wanted dead or alive-, and came up empty. Obama kept his mouth shut, waxed UBL, and dropped the remains in the ocean. We've had worse presidents than Obama. Matter of fact, we've got one right now!"

    Former President Obama, just like the former President's Reagan, both of the Bush's, and Clinton all failed when it came to the illegal aliens, or immigrants issue that the country has been dealing with, during all of their terms in Office.

    The current POTUS, steps up to the plate, with countless US citizens, via the internet, artificially in his face trying to talk him down to their individual opinionated level? 

    That's sad.

    Maybe some of the previous Presidents to various degree's, during their individual speech giving moments, pandered to the pro illegal alien crowd bases, just to get those individuals out of their faces as well, and they didn't want to deal with the guff that Trump is getting?

    With Trump being the POTUS, the country as a whole, is getting an education in how some of the political representatives, go about pandering, and catering to certain crowds, that are platforming themselves with the very (Words) that some of the political representatives say before a news media outlet news camera? 

    As I said before, some of the political representatives, playing the "Pandering  Game," back and forth, with their pandering followers, constituents? 

    Isn't it sad and desperate, how this game looks, before the rest of the United States, viewing public? 
  • @sear I would love some catch put on Trump's border wall, like if it doesn't reduce illegal immigration by X% the year after it's completion then Trump will repay the government twice what the wall cost. If people are so convinced it will work them let's put some skin on the line.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1075 Pts
    sear said:

    "If they have a visa, they've already been vetted; they're not criminals," Cd

    Until they over-stay their visa. Then they are.
    If you can quote a legitimate scientific study that demonstrates illegal aliens that enter across the border are statistically significantly more problematic than those that enter through air or sea ports, then I'll assume you're merely confirming your own bias.

    "Canadians aren't streaming across our Northern border, they ARE coming across our Southern border in droves. " Cd

    True, but irrelevant.
    Crooks may not use the back door while the front door is open. Lock and bolt the front door, the crooks walk around and use the back door instead.
    If you want to blow $Billions on a "wall", magnificent.
    If you wish to pretend that once $spent, once the "wall" is complete that that will solve some extant U.S. problem, then your ignorance is showing.
    Um, right; it's just like a criminal walking around to the back door ... if the back door was 2251 miles away from the front door over the ocean.  If that's the house you're talking about, which is impossible to create, then your analogy is spot on.

    "In order for illegals to board a plane to get to Canada, they need a visa, which means they need to be screened" Cd

    And you think Canada screens as well as the U.S.?
    You're willing to surrender our immigration standards to whatever Canada comes up with?
    Probably.  I haven't heard of a Canadian visa wavier program.

    b) How many wives has Trump had? Obama had only one, and he's still got her.
    No one else wants him.  What's your point?

    c) Michelle didn't plagiarize Melania's speech. Melania plagiarized Michelle's. 
    Michelle was too busy plagiarizing her speech from Saul Alinsky.

    d) Obama's 8 year presidency was impressively scandal free. No Iran / Contra. No losing thousands to an attack from Saudi terrorists, and then invading and occupying Iraq in reaction. "No drama Obama". The opposite of Trump's style. Bush said -wanted dead or alive-, and came up empty. Obama kept his mouth shut, waxed UBL, and dropped the remains in the ocean. We've had worse presidents than Obama. Matter of fact, we've got one right now!
    ROFL, finally you made a joke, and one of the best ones on this forum so far.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    edited March 20
    As a legal immigrant whose status would strongly benefit from Bernie's immigration policies, I can confidently say that, of all candidates currently running, he is the last person I want to see in the White House. Sure, I would like to get the Permanent Resident status as soon as possible - but there is not much point getting the Permanent Resident status in a country that has become something you want to avoid, is there? Status is not everything.

    We already can do barely anything in this economy. There are bureaucratic walls everywhere. Whenever you try to do something even slightly non-mainstream, you feel like you have just gotten into a thorn bush, and the more you struggle, the more hopeless your situation becomes.
    If we start inviting open socialists into the White House, then it will not just be a thorn bush everywhere. It will be a thorn bush everywhere coupled with the quicksand underneath. We will become like third world bloated economies where one needs to get 376423843 permits to take one breath legally.

    This used to be the country proud of the freedoms its citizens had. Proud of the fact that anyone could just open up a shop, or build a farm in the middle of nowhere, or collect some mushrooms and then sell them at the central plaza - without any king or lord that could stop them. How much has changed...
  • @MayCaesar
    How much has changed...

    True, the "Far-West" was settled completely, that's what happened and changed things... True "freedom" like you seem to depict it, at least according to my understanding, is something usually found at the "Frontier" and I fear we've reached a point where we really need to tackle the next "Frontier", Space... I think we'll see the same levels of individual freedom when massive migration in space finally starts... Until then, limited living space, limited resources and growing populations will inevitably lead to increased limitations to individual liberties...  :/ 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1595 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The population density in the US is still very low compared to many other places. Hong-Kong has some of the highest population densities in the world, yet there to open a business you only need to submit an application and go to the governmental office next day to pick up the permit - and afterwards you can produce or sell almost anything you could possibly want with no issues. While here, we have far more restrictions even in the wilderness somewhere in Iowa.
    The only problem with places like Hong-Kong is lack of the available free land. But we definitely do not have that problem in the US, and any interstate trip on a highway takes place majorly in uninhabited areas. We have entire states such as Wyoming or Alaska that are barely populated at all.

    The problem is not how the world has changed, but how the mentality has changed. It is easy to scare a population into accepting countless limitations for the sake of safety. It is much harder to revert the results of that scare afterwards, however. A few terrorist attacks occur, the government enacts harsh laws to prevent them in the future - and now people do not know how they could possibly live without those laws, even if they did for centuries before without any complaints. After wearing armor for a while, it becomes uncomfortable to walk without armor: you feel vulnerable and defenseless. Easier to keep wearing the heavy armor strangling you and limiting flexibility of movement: life is less exciting and adventurous, but, at least, you are protected!

    Bernie wants everyone to wear armor with full helmets. In those helmets, you can barely breathe, you can barely see, you can barely move... Because of all this, you are not safe either, but you sure feel safer knowing that everyone else is wearing the same helmets too.
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