Robert Reich: Six responses to Bernie Sceptics #FeelTheBern

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 pm, January 28th, 2016 - 51 comments
Categories: International, us politics - Tags: , ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfIhonVoFSg

51 comments on “Robert Reich: Six responses to Bernie Sceptics #FeelTheBern ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    28 January 2016 at 2:27 pm

    A 78 year old when he starts and 81 after one term he finishes, spent and close to death.

    No demonstrated skill to maneuver 2 hostile Houses.

    Have a good look at Mr Smith Goes To Washington. Stop trying to ‘send a message’, and get on with hiring the person with the quality to do the job.

    Hilary Clinton.

    • mac1 1.1
      28 January 2016 at 2:45 pm

      I googled life expectancy of a 78 year old in the US and found the following;-
      Life Expectancy (Female): 10.8 years
      Life Expectancy (Male): 9.2 years
      # Alive Out of 100,000 born: 62,052
      Leading Cause of Death: Cancer

      Bernie Sanders’ life expectancy will be to age 87. His health care as President would be excellent.

      • mac1 1.1.1
        28 January 2016 at 2:51 pm

        And when President Bernie Sanders ends his first term, at the age of 82, this will be the case.
        Life Expectancy (Female): 8.5 years
        Life Expectancy (Male): 7.1 years
        # Alive Out of 100,000 born: 50,667
        Leading Cause of Death: Cancer

        At election he would be the oldest ever US President, ahead of Reagan who retired at 77 years of age, FWIW.

        And at the end of his second term, he would be 86 years old. His prospects then would be:
        Life Expectancy (Female): 6.4 years
        Life Expectancy (Male): 5.4 years
        # Alive Out of 100,000 born: 37,171
        Leading Cause of Death: Heart disease
        See all Life Expectancy & Mortality Rates

      • Ad 1.1.2
        28 January 2016 at 3:11 pm

        Check out the before and after shots of Obama. Fittest president ever. Shagged.

        • mac1 1.1.2.1
          28 January 2016 at 4:04 pm

          Which before and after shots? Any two photographs eight years apart will show differences, more or less according to the choice of photograph by the editor, and any ‘retouching’.

          ‘Fittest president ever.’ Got a reference for that?

          ‘Shagged.’ Got proof of that?

          We age as we grow older. True for all of us. But to dismiss Bernie Sanders so churlishly doe not demonstrate that great attribute more frequently held by the older among us- wisdom.

          • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1.1
            28 January 2016 at 5:30 pm

            None of the detail about Obama is actually relevant.

            Being President is a very very stressful job, that takes a lot out of you. Yes, he’ll get the best healthcare, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be healthy or up to the job.

            • mac1 1.1.2.1.1.1
              28 January 2016 at 5:40 pm

              Agreed. How healthy Sanders is, and how well he stays is up to his own physiology, life style and luck, and whatever else it takes to keep us healthy, strong and capable. Just because he is the age he is does not mean he won’t be up to the job, or healthy.

              The Obama example is a very false analogy which Ad used, as I tried to show.

              • weka …
                28 January 2016 at 5:54 pm

                +1. Age itself doesn’t equate to not being able to do the job.

              • Lanthanide …
                28 January 2016 at 7:52 pm

                “Just because he is the age he is does not mean he won’t be up to the job, or healthy.”

                No, it just makes it more likely, compared to someone who is younger.

            • Andre 1.1.2.1.1.2
              28 January 2016 at 6:11 pm

              Several presidents have done the job while coping with substantial ailments, JFK being just the most recent that springs to mind (arguably Reagan didn’t actually do the job).

              In my mind, Sanders age just means he would need to exercise judgement in choosing his running mate. Which Democrats usually do. It’s just the Republicans that end up making totally flippant choices for VP candidate.

              I would also note Hillary has had at least one substantial health scare, but to my knowledge (and brief search) Bernie doesn’t have anything scary in his health history.

    • crashcart 1.2
      28 January 2016 at 3:03 pm

      Bernie has worked in the house well with Republicans. He has successfully negotiated the greatest number of amendments to policies submitted in the house.

      Add to this the fact that the republicans have spent years trying to personally take Clinton down and have a well know dislike for both her and her husband.

      It is strange that you would think that Clinton would be more successful at bringing the two parties together.

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        28 January 2016 at 5:34 pm

        “Add to this the fact that the republicans have spent years trying to personally take Clinton down and have a well know dislike for both her and her husband.”

        And they haven’t succeeded. Why would they succeed now? Surely they’ve used up all of their best ammunition already.

        “It is strange that you would think that Clinton would be more successful at bringing the two parties together.”

        Her policy platforms are significantly closer to the center than Bernie’s, so it’s not strange at all. It is in fact, logical.

    • weka 1.3
      28 January 2016 at 3:08 pm

      “A 78 year old when he starts and 81 after one term he finishes, spent and close to death.”

      Ad, there are plenty of ways to make an argument for Clinton over Sanders that don’t involved blatant ageism and elder hating.

      • Ad 1.3.1
        28 January 2016 at 3:14 pm

        Reagan was younger and barely lasted. The Gipper became the gobber.

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          28 January 2016 at 3:18 pm

          I don’t care. You’re arguing that old age is inherently linked to incompetence or uselessness and not only is that patently untrue, it’s discriminatory.

          • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1.1
            28 January 2016 at 5:36 pm

            Er, I didn’t read it as “incompetence” or “uselessness”. I read it simply as a health-related issue.

            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1
              28 January 2016 at 5:52 pm

              Are you equating old age with ill health? Why?

              Are you equating ill health with incompetency to be president? Why?

              By equating I mean that all old people are inherently unhealthy and all people with health issues are not competent (if it’s not a competency issue why are we even talking about this?). That’s the argument that Ad made – all old people can’t do the job properly therefore don’t vote Sanders.

              • Lanthanide …
                28 January 2016 at 7:50 pm

                smh

                By equating I mean that all old people are inherently unhealthy and all people with health issues are not competent (if it’s not a competency issue why are we even talking about this?).

                Obviously all old people are not inherently unhealthy and not all people with health issues are incompetent.

                I don’t know why you’d even think I suggested that.

                • weka …
                  28 January 2016 at 7:54 pm

                  Because this is a subthread where Ad appears to be arguing that someone shouldn’t be president because of their age.

                  smh?

                  • Lanthanide …
                    28 January 2016 at 7:57 pm

                    Shaking my head.

                    “Because this is a subthread where Ad appears to be arguing that someone shouldn’t be president because of their age.”

                    It is a factor that goes into weighing up a candidate. Legally candidates must be 35 years or older, but there’s no upper limit. I doubt the US public would vote for a 113 year old candidate, for example (unless they really wanted their VP pick to be president).

                    • weka …
                      28 January 2016 at 8:59 pm

                      At what point does older age become a factor?

                      The point I was making is that Clinton and Sanders can each be judged on their ability to do the job. If age related issues are impairing Sanders, or likely to impair him from doing a good job, I’d like to know what they are. But to assume that because he is 74, and solely on that basis, that he’s not capable of being president is a form of discrimination. Seriously, what is it that you think is going to possibly make him fail?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      28 January 2016 at 9:18 pm

                      Age is always a factor.

                      If age related issues are impairing Sanders, or likely to impair him from doing a good job, I’d like to know what they are.

                      Go look up some actuarial tables.

                      that he’s not capable of being president is a form of discrimination

                      You know that ‘discrimination’ literally means ‘choosing between things’?

                      That’s what the primary is for – to discriminate between the candidates and select the best one for the job. One factor that goes into that discrimination is the ages of the candidates.

                    • weka …
                      28 January 2016 at 9:33 pm

                      It also means “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex”. If you think I meant your definition you’re a twit.

                      Most voters don’t use actuarial tables. Nevertheless if the tables show that women take more time off work, does that mean we should take gender into account?

                      Please answer my questions –

                      at what age should age become a factor?

                      what is the impairment you think is a potential problem for a 74 yr old? Is it death? or something else?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      28 January 2016 at 10:11 pm

                      I didn’t think you meant my definition. I’m just pointing out that the entire point of the candidate selection process is to discriminate. That’s what it’s set up to do.

                      “at what age should age become a factor?
                      I already answered this. Age is always a factor.

                      “what is the impairment you think is a potential problem for a 74 yr old? Is it death? or something else?
                      There are things called “age-related illnesses”, and they are called that for a reason. It also shouldn’t have escaped your notice that mortality goes up, from a variety of causes, as people age.

                      For some reason you seem to think that I’m saying he shouldn’t be elected as the Democratic nominee solely because of his age. I have never actually said that. I’ve merely said that age is a factor that goes towards making the decision for who the nominee should be. I don’t think that is a controversial statement to make.

                    • weka …
                      28 January 2016 at 10:22 pm

                      ffs Lanth, the question is at what age does old age become an issue. You’ve basically said that you think that old age is negative, so I’m asking you at what point it becomes an issue.

                      The whole discrimination semantics thing is daft. Use a different word, because at the moment you appear to no understand that ageism and ableism as a form of bigotry.

                      As for the rest, you’re the one that is arguing against my point to Ad.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      29 January 2016 at 10:24 am

                      ffs Lanth, the question is at what age does old age become an issue.

                      Age is always an issue. I’ve already said that several times, but apparently you don’t like my answer?

                      You’ve basically said that you think that old age is negative, so I’m asking you at what point it becomes an issue.

                      No, I’ve noted that age correlates with health issues, and that health issues correlate with difficulty in doing a job (kind of hard to be president if you have a heart attack or stroke and never many months to recover from it).

                      The whole discrimination semantics thing is daft. Use a different word, because at the moment you appear to no understand that ageism and ableism as a form of bigotry.

                      I’m using it to highlight the fact that you seem to think we *shouldn’t* consider the age of a candidate as an important factor when considering who should be the nominee. Apparently using age is “agism”, and we should just ignore it and pretend it doesn’t matter.

                      The whole purpose of the primaries is to DISCRIMINATE. It’s not a bad evil word like you make it out to be (in this context).

                      As for the rest, you’re the one that is arguing against my point to Ad.

                      For some reason you equated noting a candidates age as implying they’re useless or incompetent. I noted that to me, a candidates age is about health and the likelihood they’ll be able to continue doing the (very high-stress) job they’ve been elected for. You seem to have difficulty with the concept that the older you are, the more likely you are to fall ill, for some reason.

        • mac1 1.3.1.2
          28 January 2016 at 4:41 pm

          Obama became President at age 47 and is now 54. A greying time for any human especially one in a stressful job.

          President Carter still alive at 91, GHW Bush Snr at 82, Obama at 54, GW Bush at 69, Clinton at 69.
          President Reagan died at age 93, Ford at age 93, Truman at 88, Hoover at 90, Nixon at 81, LBJ at 64, Kennedy assassinated, Eisenhower at 78, Truman at 88.

          Presidents of my lifetime. Gives me hope, really, at a white-bearded 66.

          • Andre 1.3.1.2.1
            28 January 2016 at 6:20 pm

            You’ve shortchanged Bush the elder by 9 years. Or else he was a very naughty boy, siring George the lesser at 13 years old.

            • mac1 1.3.1.2.1.1
              28 January 2016 at 6:41 pm

              Andre, you’re absolutely correct. 91 years. Shows what happens when reading lists longer than a computer page and you can’t see the heading of the column. Wouldn’t want to shortchange anyone their longevity. 😉

        • Stuart Munro 1.3.1.3
          29 January 2016 at 10:37 pm

          Reagan was pretty munted going in.

    • Incognito 1.4
      28 January 2016 at 5:59 pm

      The Queen is doing remarkably well then given that she’s turning 90 in April. Pope Francis is turning 80 this year but he lives in Italy and we all know the benefits of the Mediterranean diet.

  2. weka 2
    28 January 2016 at 3:16 pm

    I liked the vid. This jarred a bit though, “Socialism for the rich” and I think we need to be more careful about such concepts. Welfare for the rich maybe, but isn’t socialism where resources are produced and distributed fairly by the community as a whole? That’s not what’s happening with banking bailouts etc.

    • Ergo Robertina 2.1
      28 January 2016 at 8:08 pm

      It’s a famous quote from the late Gore Vidal, who stood for election as well as being an author and public intellectual. He described the US as personifying ”free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich”.
      Reich’s referencing it for a reason – it’s especially resonant in America where socialism is a particularly loaded term.

      • weka 2.1.1
        28 January 2016 at 8:55 pm

        Thanks for that. I always thought many people in the US believe that socialism was evil, hence the use of the term ‘socialism for the rich’ reinforces the evilness of the rich and the evilness of socialism. Or am I missing something?

  3. Olwyn 3
    28 January 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Clinton is just six years younger than Sanders if age is the problem. Moreover, an older person who is able to generate a new, positive direction may be better than a slightly younger one whose thinking is stuck within the framework of the recent past.

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      28 January 2016 at 5:38 pm

      “Moreover, an older person who is able to generate a new, positive direction may be better than a slightly younger one whose thinking is stuck within the framework of the recent past.”

      I’d take someone electable, actually.

  4. savenz 4
    28 January 2016 at 6:15 pm

    At least he does not need baubles of power at his age. Sanders comes across as wanting to leave the world a better place, which quite frankly with all the career politicians owned by lobbyists out there is a pleasant change.

    Even Trump talks openly about the lobbyists owning US presidents.

  5. RedLogix 5
    28 January 2016 at 9:34 pm

    https://youtu.be/2nwRiuh1Cug

    If that didn’t give you goosebumps I can’t help ya!

  6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6
    29 January 2016 at 1:02 pm

    His policies are a wonderful, refreshing and much-needed change. Personally I’d take the risk from health problems from his age – he’s offering good things that no other candidates are.

  7. Anno1701 7
    29 January 2016 at 1:14 pm

    “I’d take the risk from health problems from his age”

    Bernie was quite an accomplished athlete in his younger years, Im sure he takes good care of himself !

    http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/26/watch-bernie-sanders-humblebrag-about-winning-a-brooklyn-basketb/21303097/

  8. AmaKiwi 8
    14 February 2016 at 9:48 am

    Eight years as First Lady and four years as Secretary of State to which I say, “Hillary, you weren’t a revolutionary then. Stop pretending to be one now. You’re a liberal. We need revolutionaries.”

    “We” includes NZ, Australia, the EU, and all the corporate dominated counties.

    Enough is enough.

  9. the Pink Postman 9
    14 February 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Age is in the mind, Churchill as in his eighties when elected PM in the UK.Verdi was in his eighties when he wrot