Must See Bernie Sanders Interviews

[llorando]

Bernie Sanders finally does a unbiased interview witht The Young Turks. So hear is The Young Turks interview along with other must see Bernie Sanders Interviews.

[Anonymous]

I'm really happy the Young Turks called out the media on the way they treat Bernie. Everyone on both the left and the right want to paint him as some extremist even though they know the majority of his plans are being implemented and working just fine in other 1st world countries right now. They want to make it seem like he's some hippy who just took of his Birkenstocks and tie-dye shirt and threw on a suit. The mans the longest serving independant senator he literally joined the Democratic Party last year. He was mayor of Vermont for 8 years, A representative in the house for Vermont for 16 years, and a senator for for 9 ALL as an independent which means all of his support came directly from the people of Vermont. He has and still has no party backing him. People don't like him because he's radical they like him because his plans actually make sense but the media keeps telling us how he's an socialist extremist and a radical and how unelectable he is and media parrots just accept what they say and spread it even further. He's not some idealist. The mans a Jewish kid from Brooklyn! I'm pretty sure he knows how fucked up people can get. You don't have to sacrifice compassion for practicality like so many on the left seem to push. Government is suppose to be about serving its people not money and power. Henry David Thereau would be proud. Thanks for the videos man these are great just wanted to throw in my little rant.

[Opinion Owner]

Oops. Completely forgot to mention how Vermont somehow consistently gets voted in the top tier of states when it comes down to measures of quality of life. But I mean according to the media he's just a radical idealist with no practical solutions.

[Fugue]

The establishment want you to look away from Vermont, and Iceland. Shh, ignore that! Look at the wholesome, corporatist states like Kansas! ... oops, never mind that.

[Fugue]

I haven't watched the interview, yet, no rush because Bernie is preaching to the choir, in my case. But I will say that if this primary election proves anything, it's that it's not possible to have a political revolution while prioritizing the establishment media. Neither those networks nor their ailing audiences are going to be receptive to fresh ideas. The networks don't have a vested interest in doing so, and the audiences have been conditioned to think a certain way, beyond repair.
The people that are voting for Bernie in this primary are not loyal FOxnews, MSNBC or CNN watchers. The vast majority of Bernie voters are people that are statistically more informed than that. So, if H. Clinton ends up getting the nomination, it's still amazing that as many people as they did managed to get informed, compared to the past.
But the point I'm getting at is that while it's great that Bernie focused on internet grassroots and social media, I think he should have also hit the alternative media networks harder, such as dong this interview, and much earlier. He should have done more interviews with legitimate journalists (not TV media), in hope that at least one would go viral. Instead, his campaign seemed to make it a priority to develop good PR in the establishment media, in media channels that were hostile towards him, and ones which don't even have that many viewers, anymore. A viral video might have gotten more young people's attention, and motivated them to register and go out to vote for him, to cancel out the low info Clinton voters.
But, it's easy to say that, now. This campaign was an expedition into unknown territory. I'm sure at the time the Bernie campaign thought it was a safer bet to prioritize going through the traditional US election rituals, and to not look like a radical doing internet interviews. Some compare his campaign to other campaigns, such as Jessie Jackson, but the rules have changed, since them. Back then, there was no internet or alternative mass media.

[Distant]

There are only two types of people who like "Democratic socialism" and that's jobless losers and the political class. How exactly does a country go about taxing their wealthiest people over 50% and think it's justified? The companies have already sent manufacturing abroad and don't think they would hesitate to move their headquarters to a more accommodating country as soon as these tax laws pass (even though they won't). Everyone deserves a fair shot at life but this twisted faux-socialism Sanders in preaching *WILL NOT WORK*. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who considered himself "socialist" in the not-too-distant past.

[Fugue]

@Distant Well, if your mind is made up, and you have your private definitions of words, incl. "democratic socialism", so if all you wanted was to bark at me, go do it elsewhere because I am not interested.

[Distant]

My mind is never "made up". I am a truly open-minded person. However, VERY seldom does someone provide a reasonable counter-argument for ANYTHING without it being ad hominem.

[Fugue]

@Distant Ad hominem, such as "There are only two types of people who like "Democratic socialism" and that's jobless losers and the political class."

[Distant]

I was also attacking the ideology of "democratic socialism". Who does it appeal to? Does it appeal to hard-working people who have their taxes raised? No. Does it appeal to the millionaires who have their taxes raised? No. Does it appeal to the political class that gets to control where that money goes? Yes. Does it appeal to people who don't work and are now getting something for nothing? Yes.

I cannot see any other viewpoint. I'm not trying to be confrontational. Please enlighten me to the benefits of such a system.

[Fugue]

That doesn't answer the question, and then you go off on a repeat rant under the same false premises I initially replied about.

You want me to enlighten you? Considering you don't own up, or lack the self-awareness to see the hypocrisy of spouting ad hominems, while decrying them, I see the odds of that as low, and thus not worth the effort.

[Distant]

So you concede that you are not able to defend you viewpoint? On some moral high ground on a technicality? Sigh. I'm not sure what I expected, to be honest. Honest reasoning from someone who supports Bernie seems to be non-existent... I wasn't technically decrying ad hominem, by the way. I was pointing out that "democratic socialists" have only one arrow in their proverbial quiver which is the ad hominem argument. I guess there are now two arrows: Ad hominem arguments and holier-than-thou "not worth the effort" (AKA inability to actully defend their beliefs)

[Fugue]

@Distant I concede that you are not very bright.

[Distant]

Exactly what I thought. Great back-and-forth there, champ. You are truly one of the great minds of the century /s

[QuestionMan]

I'm glad the Young Turks finally got to interview him. They're my favourite Liberal media source. I tend to look at all sides since I am a centrist.
When I look at Bernie I see a good man that's too idealistic. When Cenk asked him "What are you going to do about the Republicans?" he dodged the question. It's a very important point. I agree to some extent with Bernie that the media is corrupt and we need honest politicians but I see his reforms as being too radical and too expensive.

Free health care is a terrible idea. I've seen it in action. The private sector can actually make it work better and cheaper if you allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Paid vacation is just ridiculous.

I do however agree that we need free education. An educated populace is one that improves the economy. However the system itself must first be reformed.

[redeyemindtricks]

Well put, especially the last 2 paragraphs.

Using tax money to fund the CURRENT version of American "higher education" -- with more administrators than professors, and with 2-million-square-foot rec centers, and shit -- would just be a horrible mistake. I mean, universities already burn through money badly enough... I can only imagine how bad it'd get if taxes were being used. No thank you.

[QuestionMan]

@redeyemindtricks Thanks :)

[Fugue]

It's not free healthcare , it's a public option, a system only meant to pay for itself. Basically it would be to private insurance, what the post office is to FedEx. You say "the private sector can actually make it work better and cheaper", where? Certainly not in the US, where it's one of the most expensive and overall the least effective.

Basically, what the rest of the developed world has had for many decades, is what Bernie Sanders is advocating. So, you have to elaborate on why it's a terrible idea.

How did he dodge the question on what to do about Republicans? Did H. Clinton have a better answer?

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue Since I'm from a country with "free" health care (obviously it's funded through tax payer money and not free) I can tell you that you would giving up efficiency and access to health care since everyone would be entitled to it. When the government would need to cut costs to balance the budget, health care would be affected greatly.

By allowing many insurance companies to compete across state lines you greatly lower the price of health care and you allow for more people to have access to it.

Don't even get me started on the crook Hillary. Even if Bernie gets elected he will face major opposition in the Congress and Senate. His reforms are too radical and people from both sides will be trying to block him. Why do you think Hillary is beating Bernie? It's not just because she's a part of the establishment and has Wall Street backing her but because she's Obama 2.0 and not a radical revolutionary.

[Fugue]

You could bloviate your opinion and hypotheses about public healthcare, literally all day, but it's just opinion and hypothesis, divorced from empirical reality. Looking at the issue, empirically, the US has the most expensive healthcare, while being the worst overall performer among developed nations. That's a stone cold fact. If you dispute this, you are living in an alternate reality, and nothing more needs to be said.

As far as Canada, Harper screwed the place up, and now Trudeau has to clean it up.

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue You're kidding right?
healthydebate.ca/.../health-system-inefficient-can
www.conferenceboard.ca/.../...nvenient_truths.aspx
I could go on and on.
Harper wasn't perfect but Trudeau will ruin Canada. He wants deficits and increased taxes.

[Fugue]

Quite silly how you respond to the expensive and inefficient US healthcare system with some opinion blogs about the Canadian healthcare system. Does not compute, eh?

[redeyemindtricks]

@Fugue I don't know much about the Canadian healthcare system in particular, but, I make a big chunk of my living as a health and fitness consultant, and I have several clients who live in Canada but routinely come down here to the US for healthcare services.
Like, surgery and stuff... but, even things like MRI's. I personally know at least two Canadians who actually flew across the border just to get an MRI, because they would have had to wait almost a YEAR to get one at home.

That's my exposure to the Canadian healthcare system. So, something is clearly very wrong there.

[Fugue]

@redeyemindtricks How long does someone without insurance have to wait in the US? Because the US is the champion among developed nations, in percent of uninsured citizens, and it even beats many 3rd world countries.

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue So throw money at the problem that's your solution. Those are 2 of many you can look up statistics done by the Fraiser institute on the inefficiency of the Canadian healthcare system.
People go to the US to pay for faster access. That should tell you something.

Insurance and healthcare reform is the solution.

[Fugue]

"So throw money at the problem that's your solution."

Nope. Full stop.

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue Do some research into our system before you praise it. I've been to a Canadian hospital. Minimum wait time is 8 hours. If you need surgery that's 4 months. I've spoken with people who flew to either the US or to some parts of Canada that have private healthcare and they said it's significantly better.

Most people can afford insurance. Those that can't can be given government based health insurance.

[Fugue]

How long is the wait time if you have no insurance or money in the US?

Most people can afford insurance? Well, fuck the rest, eh? And it's not a small group. US, highest percent of uninsured in the developed world, and much of the 3rd world. And fuck the taxpayers that have to pay for their ER, once they get really sick.

[Fugue]

And it's so quaint how people say "i'm this and I live here, so trust me, the system sucks". Well, same to you about the US. I live here, more than one time at a hospital, and the healthcare system sucks.

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue I'm talking about a two tier system.
If you read what I wrote I said
"Most people can afford insurance. Those that can't can be given government based health insurance"

This was in reference to Canada. Our lower class isn't as large as yours.

I believe a two tier system can work for you as well. Those who can afford will get private insurance and those that can't will have it covered under a government insurance.

I suggest you look at Donald Trump's healthcare plan. Ignore the bs about vaccines causing autism look at how he plans to get access for all.

[Fugue]

Then you were arguing against a strawman. Nobody said private insurance needs to be banned, any more than the post office needs FedEx to be banned. No matter if you're talking about Canada or the US, nobody is advocating to ban private insurance. People in Canada are free to buy it, so who knows what you are arguing against.

Now, if you were saying a non-profit public option insurance agency is not allowed to compete with private insurance, based on how much people make, that's simply fascistic corporatism.

[QuestionMan]

@Fugue I never said we need to ban a public option.
I advocate for 2 tier health care. Private for those that can afford and Public for those that can't. I strongly oppose having only public as is the case in many areas of Canada.

[Fugue]

You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

[ThisAndThat]

Bernie Sanders is just another establishment candidate equal to Hillary. Those that think otherwise ask yourselves what has he done for you in the many years he's already been in there. The US industry is practically non existent even though we invented nearly everything in the world we make almost nothing that goes into the world today. Do you think taxing a already non existent economy will work and if you do explain how that works. Donald Trump is the only non existent candidate running and he's already loaded so he can't be bought. Electing another establishment candidate that doesn't mind finishing off our economy will only make things worse. We are on the edge of communism right now and if you think communism works ask anyone from the old USSR why if failed there and why were they trying to flee their country before it did. Donald Trump 2016!

[diegoD]

He is not an establishment candidate.!! did you not hear the interview? He stood up to the MIlitary industrial complex , he stood up to wall street, He stood up to the big pharmaceutical companies, He does not take corporate money, what more proof do you need? if you can't understand the facts you are blind. We are not on the edge of communism, we are on the verge of facism, corporations own and control politics and the media if you care to investigate who owns the media. plus 24 people have more money than almost half of the country.

Donald trump supports the military industrial complex.

[RationalMale]

... this is a guy who

1. Gave up his own rally, ditching his supporters who came out to hear him speak, when some angry black women ran up and seized the mic.
2. Thinks that he can somehow raise taxes enough that not only will college be two years free for anyone, but medicaid for all. And somehow, college won't become worthless and a disaster like medicaid or other government programs.
3. Says that undoing that 1994 Crime Bill, which seriously lowered crime through mandatory sentencing and more police officers, is a good thing because we need to release more black criminals from prison.
4. Is so delusional and racist he thinks there are no poor white people.

[llorando]

Actually it wasn't his rally, he was just a guest.

[Phoenix98]

Pretty much nailed it RM.

[Anonymous]

I think his fundamental problem is he conceives of the world as a moral system rather than a physical one. Over and over he speaks as if every problem is caused by a moral failing or can be corrected by moral rectitude. This is the mindset of an ideologue. It ignores the aspects of human nature it does not like, brands them as wicked or primitive. It takes humans as square pegs and tries to pound them into round holes.

[Fugue]

You have to be intellectually handicap if that's what you get from what he's saying. You literally pulled out the "morality" argument out of your ass.

[Opinion Owner]

@Fugue

You think so? It seems like everything he says comes down to "we have to do this because it's the right thing to do". Never "we have to do this because it will work, will give us the end desired". For example we have to redistribute wealth because it's wrong some people have so much, not because it will make everyone better off in the long run.

You can't argue with these kinds of assertions because what's right and wrong is entirely subjective. What will work can be analyzed rationally but what's right is a conviction proof against argument.

[Fugue]

Everything Bernie says is argued around function, and backed by demonstrable evidence. If you can't elaborate on anything specific he has said, you are only wasting space, or trolling.

What you have said, so far, could just as easily be said with "Bernie sucks!". Yeah, whatever. Elaborate, or go play somewhere.

[Opinion Owner]

@Fugue

2:07 into the first interview he says most of the increase in wealth is going to the top 2% "and that's just not what America is about" in other words it's morally wrong. He doesn't address function at all. He doesn't even really examine fairness from any angle but his own subjective view. Do I really have to list every time he does this because it's about every three minutes. You are pretty obviously a true believer (a true berniever?) and there's no point in arguing with you if you can't see it. I don't think he's much crazier than most politicians and he's obviously sincere in his ideological convictions and not corrupt or an egomaniac but his moral rectitude does not make him a clear thinker.

[Lovelinefan]

The role of the government should be to protect the citizens of the United States' freedom, and as little else as possible. The government is NOT here to take care of us, to babysit us, to be our parent or caretaker.

Redistribution of wealth is a great example. How come the government should have the right to say "Um, excuse me, you have too much money and all these people don't have enough, so we're going to take... hmmm.. lets see... THIS much money from you and give it to these people over there who don't have nearly as much"

Who gives anyone the right to say how much you or I or anyone else "should" have?

This "The rich need to pay their fair share" stuff is nonsense. Not only are the top income earners not using government benefits to the extent that poor people are (food stamps, section 8 housing, public schools), but dollar wise they're paying more in taxes than many people make in an entire year! Not to mention they're creating jobs and paying more in sales tax, etc.

[Opinion Owner]

@Lovelinefan

I take a more moderate view. There is no law of the universe, no principle (such as free markets or socialism) which will make things come out for the best. Chaining your mind to an ideology is just making yourself stupid deliberately. Social theories solve problems and make problems and it's important when solving a problem not to ignore the new ones you may be making.
The greatest danger of a government which takes care of people is that power follows responsibility. If you are responsible for something it only makes sense you should have power over it, otherwise how can you discharge your responsibility effectively? If I'm driving the car I have to have control over the steering acceleration and brakes otherwise how can i be accountable if we run into a tree?
So when you give government responsibility for something like healthcare sooner or later the government is going to acquire the powers, all the powers, which in any way affect your health.

[pervertedjester]

This one was better

https://youtu.be/qCS6PbtbGmA

[diegoD]

He is not better, He is also honest like sanders. But he promotes tax cuts for billionaires. and is too far to the right on fiscal issues.

[dudeman]

the young turks are the most biased media outlet. they are far more biased then fox news.

[diegoD]

But they are not corrupted by the money from the military industrial complex or the big pharmaceuticals. I agree with close to 98% with Cenk Yuger

[dudeman]

@diegoD 98% thats a lot. i probably agree with 10% of what they say.

[TheSpartan]

Ugh, The Young Turks? That's just disgusting, man. You make me want to vomit.

[Fugue]

I feel the same about your pic.

[TheSpartan]

@Fugue lol is that it? You're going to have to do better than that.

[Lovelinefan]

Unbiased and The Young Turks can't be in the same sentence, unless that sentence is "The Young Turks Aren't Unbiased"

It's great that so many young people are getting interested in one level or another in politics, but sooooo many of them (they seem to be mainly on the democratic side, though I know the republican side has it's fair share of knuckleheads too) can't engage in any sort of intelligent debate or argument... all they can do is make attacks like @Fugue did, or call Donald Trump "Hitler".

Ugh!

[Fugue]

@Lovelinefan Name 1 major media unbiased source.

[TheSpartan]

@Fugue AP isn't too bad.

[Fugue]

'Not so bad', but not unbiased?

[TheSpartan]

@Fugue They're okay. Individual reporters have their biases.

[Fugue]

So, no.

[TheSpartan]

@Fugue obviously no.

[Lovelinefan]

@Fugue Don't think it can exist, as it's writers, reporters, management, etc. are all PEOPLE who will tend to have their own biases, however mild or extreme.
Gathering information from multiple sources, and as many first hand sources (directly from the candidate) as possible is the way to go.
The poster said it was an unbiased interview with Bernie, but TYT are EXTREMELY biased.

[TheSpartan]

@Lovelinefan The problem isn't that they're biased. It's just that they're horrible at using their brains.

[Fugue]

@Lovelinefan Then if you are conceding that there is no such thing as unbiased, just less or more biased, I would say that TYT is less biased than the corporatist media that has interviewed him. If TYT is biased, at the very least they believe what they say. The media, on the other hand, is shaping a machiavellian narrative.

[ThatBritishLad]

Who the hell are these people and why do I keep hearing their names? What happened do that bloke who was against Obama who everyone said looked like the Emperor? Romney was it? I miss that guy.

[Tromba]

He lost the election when it was found out he had gone on a family vacation with his dog in a cage on the roof of his automobile because he didn't want him inside. The dog was so traumatized it had diarrhea all over the car. The astounding thing is he acknowledged the story and initially didn't seem to see anything wrong with it. I think he lost about 15 points right there.

[Woodyyyy]

Holy sht young turks has almost 3 subs on youtube now. I remember following them YEARS ago when they just started. Cenk doing it big !

[Anonymous]

Lol tyt. Cenk is one of those armenian genocide deniers.

[Phoenix98]

Lol, that's all I can say.

[strateguy632]

surprised me