Sanders gets greeted by high school students against gun violence
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
travisw
Well-Known Member
Still beating this drum kiddo? Nobody is disputing your rather selective claim that Bernie passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member from 1995 to 2007. But, if you're actually interested in his effectiveness as a senator, we can explore that. Hell, the Washington Post already did.
You seem fixated on Hillary Clinton so lets use her record as a basis of comparison.
For this debate about effectiveness, the most important pieces of legislation are arguably bills which the two members sponsored, and which proposed substantive changes in law. This excludes commemorative bills; both Clinton and Sanders, for example, passed several bills renaming post offices after prominent local residents. This also excludes resolutions, which are either symbolic or procedural in nature.
This also excludes legislation that Sanders and Clinton co-sponsored. A bill’s sponsor typically shepherds the bill through Congress and is usually (but not always) the bill’s primary author. By contrast, a co-sponsor merely signs his or her name on to a bill after it has been written and introduced, to indicate that she or he supports it.
Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that passed.
Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.
Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.
Sanders’s legislative effectiveness score was below the House median in seven of the eight Congresses in which he served.
Hillary Clinton was a more effective lawmaker than Bernie Sanders
ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.51b24db93874
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The claim falls into the category of distortion known as cherry picking.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So you'd rather see the Democrats nominate Shillary again instead of Bernie?Still beating this drum kiddo? Nobody is disputing your rather selective claim that Bernie passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member from 1995 to 2007. But, if you're actually interested in his effectiveness as a senator, we can explore that. Hell, the Washington Post already did.
You seem fixated on Hillary Clinton so lets use her record as a basis of comparison.
For this debate about effectiveness, the most important pieces of legislation are arguably bills which the two members sponsored, and which proposed substantive changes in law. This excludes commemorative bills; both Clinton and Sanders, for example, passed several bills renaming post offices after prominent local residents. This also excludes resolutions, which are either symbolic or procedural in nature.
This also excludes legislation that Sanders and Clinton co-sponsored. A bill’s sponsor typically shepherds the bill through Congress and is usually (but not always) the bill’s primary author. By contrast, a co-sponsor merely signs his or her name on to a bill after it has been written and introduced, to indicate that she or he supports it.
Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that passed.
Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.
Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.
Sanders’s legislative effectiveness score was below the House median in seven of the eight Congresses in which he served.
Hillary Clinton was a more effective lawmaker than Bernie Sanders
ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.51b24db93874
Anyone but Bernie, is that it? You certainly aren't FOR anyone.
Nominate her again, watch her lose again.
The Progressive agenda won't be stopped, precisely because it has such broad support.
travisw
Well-Known Member
I can appreciate that your zeal for trolling prevents you and your little cadre of pseudo intellectual dip shits from comprehending what other members post, so let me take a second to clear up a couple of points for you.
1. I've never endorsed Hillary Clinton for anything. You and your gal Friday, @Padawanbater2, are the people that refuse to stop talking about Hillary Clinton. If you read either of my posts in this shitty thread, you'd see he brought Hillary into our discussion not me. Contrary to what you guys believe, I don't think electing another white octogenarian to lead the country will result in the type of changes I'd be interested in seeing.
2. I'm not FOR anyone but Bernie, I'm just not for Bernie. I used to listen to your Messiah on the Thom Hartmann show over a decade ago. Again, an nearly 80 year old, white career politician isn't the change I'm looking for.
Your claims that I'm certainly not for anyone are nonsensical. I'd love to hear from people like Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, or Maize Hirono, but it's a little early for that yet. Bernie started running four years before the next election. I know it's difficult for your bleating hearts club to understand, but many of us would like to see who else was running before deciding who the next president should be.
3. As to your bloviations about if I nominate her again watch her lose again, I didn't nominate or vote for her the first fucking time and as far as I know, she hasn't announced she was running again. The only people on the board who won't shut the fuck up about Hillary are @ttystikk , @Padawanbater2 , and @schuylaar.
4. As to your progressive agenda won't be stopped thing, good for you. I'm sure you three shit posting a pot forum for the next 4 years will prove invaluable in advancing said agenda,
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The only reason Hillary Clinton's record was brought up was because you brought up Bernie Sanders legislative record in congress (which is far more impressive than most members of congress, despite what you might believe). You said;
Obviously in an attempt to disparage his voting record. Yet I responded with Clinton's record which is objectively worse than Sanders';
Yet here you are, and have been for the past year, washing the balls of those that support Clinton. So it's obvious that the voting record is irrelevant to your argument. If you actually cared about their voting record, you would be criticizing Clinton supporters, like Buck, instead of Sanders supporters. Yet you don't. Because you're not actually interested in their voting records in congress, you simply bring Sanders' up in an attempt to discredit him while ignoring Clinton's because you support the people that supported her.
In other words, you're a political hack bent on tribalism, not policy
What sorts of changes would you be interested in seeing? What potential presidential candidate for 2020 might best represent those changes? Unless you're totally politically ignorant, which I don't believe you are, you would have at least a few people in mind, so who are they? You listed Duckworth, Harris, and Hirono, so what policy positions do they support that you feel best represents the kinds of changes you'd like to see made?
I'm not exactly sure how the age and the color of skin of someone would matter when considering viable potential presidential candidates. You're essentially saying that since previous presidents were mostly old, white men, that anyone who is old or a white man is not a viable presidential candidate. You understand that's a pretty poor reason to disqualify a candidate for president, right? There are tons of old white men I would rather have as president than Donald Trump, and I'm positive you would agree.
What policies supported by Sanders do you explicitly disagree with to the point that you oppose his candidacy as the Democratic nominee?
Do you think someone else is going to magically show up out of nowhere all of a sudden and represent your values more than those you already know about or who've already shown interest in running in 2020?
Because as someone who follows American politics every day, that would be extremely unlikely to happen. I already know about everyone in the game. Those I don't know about would automatically lack the trust needed to cast a vote for them. If you would cast your vote for some newcomer right out of the gate without any political experience, but more importantly without a political record that proves without a shadow of doubt where they stand on political issues, like Joe Kennedy, you're naive. Without political experience, a candidate will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear, just like Donald Trump did, to get you to vote for them. Their political record is set in stone and shows you exactly where they stand on the issues, and have over the course of their career. That's one of the key reasons I support Senator Sanders. Over the course of his decades long career, you would be hard pressed to find a single vote on the wrong side of the issue, which is one of the reasons that contributes to his popularity among the American people; they know he's honest. So even if a voter doesn't agree with him on policy, they still believe him when it comes to his values and his voting record. Something his 2016 primary opponent seriously lacked which led to her defeat in the general election. :hot sauce!:
Justice Democrats are out raising their establishment candidates through individual contributions across the country, there are tens of thousands of volunteers supporting this movement, Sanders holds a 92% approval rating among Democrats and has had Republicans in deep red states like West Virginia praise him above their Republican counterparts in support of progressive policies like universal healthcare, universal college, and increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. You ignore the power of this movement at your own peril, ignorance, and arrogance.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what an incredible meltdownThe only reason Hillary Clinton's record was brought up was because you brought up Bernie Sanders legislative record in congress (which is far more impressive than most members of congress, despite what you might believe). You said;
Obviously in an attempt to disparage his voting record. Yet I responded with Clinton's record which is objectively worse than Sanders';
Yet here you are, and have been for the past year, washing the balls of those that support Clinton. So it's obvious that the voting record is irrelevant to your argument. If you actually cared about their voting record, you would be criticizing Clinton supporters, like Buck, instead of Sanders supporters. Yet you don't. Because you're not actually interested in their voting records in congress, you simply bring Sanders' up in an attempt to discredit him while ignoring Clinton's because you support the people that supported her.
In other words, you're a political hack bent on tribalism, not policy
What sorts of changes would you be interested in seeing? What potential presidential candidate for 2020 might best represent those changes? Unless you're totally politically ignorant, which I don't believe you are, you would have at least a few people in mind, so who are they? You listed Duckworth, Harris, and Hirono, so what policy positions do they support that you feel best represents the kinds of changes you'd like to see made?
I'm not exactly sure how the age and the color of skin of someone would matter when considering viable potential presidential candidates. You're essentially saying that since previous presidents were mostly old, white men, that anyone who is old or a white man is not a viable presidential candidate. You understand that's a pretty poor reason to disqualify a candidate for president, right? There are tons of old white men I would rather have as president than Donald Trump, and I'm positive you would agree.
What policies supported by Sanders do you explicitly disagree with to the point that you oppose his candidacy as the Democratic nominee?
Do you think someone else is going to magically show up out of nowhere all of a sudden and represent your values more than those you already know about or who've already shown interest in running in 2020?
Because as someone who follows American politics every day, that would be extremely unlikely to happen. I already know about everyone in the game. Those I don't know about would automatically lack the trust needed to cast a vote for them. If you would cast your vote for some newcomer right out of the gate without any political experience, but more importantly without a political record that proves without a shadow of doubt where they stand on political issues, like Joe Kennedy, you're naive. Without political experience, a candidate will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear, just like Donald Trump did, to get you to vote for them. Their political record is set in stone and shows you exactly where they stand on the issues, and have over the course of their career. That's one of the key reasons I support Senator Sanders. Over the course of his decades long career, you would be hard pressed to find a single vote on the wrong side of the issue, which is one of the reasons that contributes to his popularity among the American people; they know he's honest. So even if a voter doesn't agree with him on policy, they still believe him when it comes to his values and his voting record. Something his 2016 primary opponent seriously lacked which led to her defeat in the general election. :hot sauce!:
Justice Democrats are out raising their establishment candidates through individual contributions across the country, there are tens of thousands of volunteers supporting this movement, Sanders holds a 92% approval rating among Democrats and has had Republicans in deep red states like West Virginia praise him above their Republican counterparts in support of progressive policies like universal healthcare, universal college, and increasing the minimum wage to a living wage. You ignore the power of this movement at your own peril, ignorance, and arrogance.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Those Justice Debs are going to ruin our tribalism.
Oh, I am so angry at them. So angry. And jealous of them. So jealous. I just know that they are going to stop us from washing our balls. They like dirty balls. So brave. So powerful.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I love the way you have appropriated the term "progressive", made it into a hair shirt and now have apparently convinced yourself that anybody who does not share your comically bad tactics and strategy is morally inferior to you.
You are delusional.
You and your so called movement are nothing more than a bunch of sanctimonious dilitents who will take credit for any future victories of the Dems while loudly cackling "I told you so! I told you so!" after any potential setbacks. You are a bunch of trifling children who will little effect the future of politics.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What we believe will help Americans is based on objective evidence, we simply want our government to reflect that. Apparently, you and the others you support believe neoliberal policies are what reflect the American will. Well, we think you're wrong. We can state as much without resorting to attacking your character because our arguments don't rely on character assassination to make our point. Our points stand on their own, you have to resort to character assassination to try to appeal to the less astute to be able to make your point; they don't stand on their own..
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
I only read the last bit, but am still left wondering where all these republicans that are praising Barney Sanders are?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he is referring to one moment at one CNN townhall where one west virginian reluctantly agreed to his views on one thing
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"shillary"
"herd like mentality"
"f****ots"
"cuck" (to be fair you borrowed this one from the alt right neo nazis for some reason)
"establishment"
"neoliberal"
"corporatist"
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Oh please. In your moral superiority, you ascribe anyone who does not accept you "pure" and morally clean "platform" with any number of epithets. You act like the early years of the fucking Khmer Rouge ffs. You act like you invented the term progressive as well as every single progressive policy and anybody who doesn't whole agree with you is a revisionist neoliberal. You didn't invent being arrogant, entitled little assholes either; you are just the latest iteration.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
And tty's fave: ballwasher. He's obsessed with it. If he brushed his teeth as often as he uses the ballwasher term, his life would improve.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Character assassination because you've got no logical argument.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Character assassination because you've got no logical argument.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
