Bernie getting outplayed, twice

From iGeek
Revision as of 09:52, 28 August 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

A little long with all Bernie's dancing/dodging/distracting. But the basics are:

  • Bernie believes that 51% of the population can vote away others people's rights... even if they don't have the right to do that individually.
  • When he loses, you get to see a petulant little man that can't hold his own intellectually, and has a polite tantrum and leaves

You'd think that a lifelong Trotskyist would be able to defend where he's coming from, "what are the limits of government power, and why". You know he was one of those dipshit hippies that would argue with you about the evils of the proletariat and he never grew out of it. You say something he doesn't like, and he filibusters about a different point.

Q: Bernie, exactly what crime do you think the Bankers committed to cause the financial meltdown?
A: Let me tell you about the evils of Wall St…. {insert blah blah Marxist rhetoric here, without ever answering the question}

Also FWIW, Bernie is wrong on what he's thinks the Interviewer is asking. He tries to build a strawman, "is every law some sort of forceful attack on innocent people". Then Bernie tries to burn that simpler argument down, but he can’t even do that. Even his attempted false-premise is a fact that works against him: every law is a set of rules by which the government threatens life, liberty or property if you don't comply with it. That’s why they are laws, instead of suggestions or requests. Thus laws ARE the THREAT of a forceful attack on OTHERWISE innocent people. And threats only have value/traction if they'll be carried out (at least some of the time). If what they're doing warrants that attack (like they're hurting/endangering others), then that threat/action is justified. If they aren't, then it isn’t. But a law always comes with a threat of punishment.

So first he tries to make invent a short-bus version of an question that the interviewer isn’t saying, (so he can argue against it), but his own question wasn’t remedial enough for him to defend against himself. It was like watching Cybil lose an argument with herself.


Bernie Sanders
I constantly read fawning articles and blogs about Sanders. I really don’t care who you want to vote for, I just care that people are voting from a position of knowledge and are not lying to others (or themselves) about who/what he is. This reminds people of all the info they didn't get from the media.