True, nobody who breaks promises has ever been elected president.
(For the record, I agree with you! Which is why I said he'll get some deserved flak for it)
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
WaPo OPed: Bernie Sanders promised to disclose his medical records. What happened?
- Thread starter Deleted member 3896
- Start date
True, nobody who breaks promises has ever been elected president.
(For the record, I agree with you! Which is why I said he'll get some deserved flak for it)
Well, yes. I can't think of a better example of a purity test!
Does this reflect some core campaign promise? No: it was said a single time in a single interview. Does it change anything Bernie has said on issues that actually affect people's lives? No: releasing full medical records vs. releasing a credible medical report has never been a particularly ideological or values-driven choice. Is there anything the slightest bit notable about an answer that was given once in a live setting being backtracked upon? No: it happens all the time. Is releasing full medical records a common standard for "transparency"? No: we almost always get what Bernie gave us, it's almost always considered sufficient, and no one has managed to actually criticize what he released beyond "but this one time he promised more."
The entire driving idea here is that, Bernie said this thing that one time, and therefore it must be considered absolutely set in stone and any divergence shall inherently be considered a grave sin regardless of the fact that none of this is situated around anything meaningful.
Classic purity test!
liberals are so used to bending over backwards to accommodate bad faith criticism from conservatives who will never vote for their candidates that they can't understand it when people to their left don't do the same
OP
OP
The packaging doesn't matter at all, this was covered elsewhere and really the opinion piece simply contextualizes Sanders' own words and actions.
How is this not enough? Does the CAP have a team of docs that would interpret his health different?
OP
OP
I'd rather he follow through with his promise to give a clearer picture.
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory attack on another poster
I trust Mercury's "Nope" as much as I trust Trump's "No Puppet". Their activities speak louder than their denials.
OP
OP
It's so interesting to me that a thread about a candidate must devolve into personal attacks on other members and inflammatory, unwarranted false equivalences.
This is all very reminiscent of the tax return conversation. I sure hope Jen Kirkman doesn't hear about this!
Please enlighten us with your definition of Bernie 'Bros'
Please enlighten us with your definition of Bernie 'Bros'
if a bernie thread from you starts with everyone assuming that you're concern trolling maybe that's your own fault
let's not pretend as if there's anything at all sanders could do to satisfy your criticisms of him
Just had something similar typed out when the new messages notification came up.
Damn it's like Bernie and Trump are the same person huh
They both have doctors
OP
OP
Ehn, I'm not a fan of that label tbh. I would love to have threads about candidates where we don't label or attack other members.
I don't think it comes off as bad faith at all. Bernie is old, and it's fair to be concerned about his health, especially after a heart attack like this.
I really wish everybody would stop tossing around "bad faith" attacks like this, from the left and the center left. It's largely unprobvable and all it really does is poison the discourse.
A toxic, reactionary Bernie supporter of no specific gender identification that, to me, resemble the damaging HillaryIs44 supporters way back when. whose support for Hillary over Obama reached almost comedic levels of bile and bitterness, who would resort to personal attacks and cries of "concern trolling" of ANY person that questioned their candidate, why you ask?
Interesting how you don't call out people when they compare bernie supporters to trump supporters, yet you're claiming to be against "unwarranted false equivalences".
OP
OP
So, getting bullied and personally attacked for having legitimate concerns is my own fault? In other words, victim blaming?
I didn't compare Bernie to Trump.
I've only used something I believe we all agree on (that trump is in poor physical and mental health) to illustrate the flaw in this appeal to authority argument. Anyone can get letters from a doctor
i would also note I've never asked for Bernie to release his medical records nor do I think he should. He is the one that offered them though
Funny that you reference the PUMA movement and the 2008 election. I'm sure that you're aware that the "Bernie Bros" smear was pretty much the exact same as the "Obama Boys" smear in that election. Both smears were used to delegitimize supporters of Hillary's opponents by reducing them to their gender, and insinuating that any criticism of Hillary was sexist. And, of course, both were created by David "she's a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" Brock.
i'm sure it's very hard for you to have people remember your previous posts
well it is something that separates them from the american public
(I think by virtue of not holding federal office only Williamson, Yang, and fuckin Bloomberg remain as candidates that haven't received federal health coverage?)
Unfortunately, bad faith posturing over transparency under the "I'm concerned about his health" umbrella is still bad faith posturing over transparency.
If you're that concerned, perhaps put some effort into criticizing the information he actually released - information that was stamped by credible professionals, and that adheres to the level of transparency that has been expected of virtually every other candidate - instead of latching on so strongly to some selectively applied standard of how rigidly candidates must live up to their every uttered word lest they be casted aside as liars.
Legitimate concern is not always channeled in a good faith way, and it's pretty obvious to see how that's the case here, from the article itself to the disingenuous arguments in this thread.
Bernie would be perfect if he wasn't anti-NAFTA
his Anti-NAFTA stance is big slap in the face to Canadians.
his Anti-NAFTA stance is big slap in the face to Canadians.
wtf are you talking about? oil companies? Canadian labour fucking hates NAFTA
it's not like this would even be an issue having just dealt with USMCA
I don't think I understand the way you're using "bad faith," then. You say in your last paragraph that can legitimate concern. If the concern is legitimate, the expression must be, as well. It can be hyperbolic, but that's different from just being false, used to obscure some other motive.
(Worth noting, if somebody didn't like Bernie for other reasons and now says that this bothers them, that's *not* automatically a bad faith attack. It's them having multiple bones to pick with Sanders. Which, hey, you might disagree with, but it's still a real thing to talk about.)
I think that the line of discussion around the letters is a good example of why the bad faith analysis is bad and dumb. Maybe the letters are good enough for you and others - you're assured that Sanders is in fine health, because his doctors said so. Other people are less sure. Maybe they're still worried about his health and they want the records released publicly so more authorities can weigh in. Maybe they want then released because they don't really have the same implicit trust of Bernie and they're worried about what might happen if he has another attack as the nominee. Maybe they're just transparency advocates, or they think thst once he's committed to a promise he should keep it. By tossing all these people into the "doesn't matter, bad faith" bucket, all you're really doing is making the whole discussion less pleasant for everybody. It's not doing anything else.
Was a socialist until I realized Bernie took back his promise to show his prostate to the world. Now I feel betrayed
What if I told you there was a middle space between abandoning all your prior convictions and noselling the whole thing?
Well there's a huge difference between the two. Bernie got 3 different opinions, one from the official Congressional physician who you would have to consider impartial even if you side-eye his other two. Trump got a letter from what is essentially a stooge if I remember correctly.
Im sure these distinctions won't matter to alot of people though.
You know what, you're right. I still support public health care but I am now lukewarm on the collective ownership of private resources until I get that prostate image
I think it's fair to wonder where the records are, but this article exists to and is mainly being used to disingenuoisly argue that this is some sort of scandal for Bernie. I've seen so many people say the exact words "a 78 year old man with a heart attack" spring up in the past few hours alone. It's just not slick, you know?
Personally it feels like things in the US are too dire to give any credence or even an iota of energy to such an inconsequential complaint. If you like Sanders' platform this shouldn't matter at all, so the only people who are going to harp on this are people who don't care much for him.
Not only that but the vast majority of people going on about this couldn't even begin to tell you what the records even say if they did have them.
if you're still concerned after three evaluations (one being an IME) then maybe you won't get what you're looking for
What's the actual end game of this thread or line of criticism? Weakening the progressive candidate with good foreign policy and strengthening the senile/lying old man with a terrible record right as we are on the brink of war with Iran?
While pedantry can be fun online, it's good to know when deploying it is gauche.
While pedantry can be fun online, it's good to know when deploying it is gauche.
Leftists are well aware how dire things are when a 78 year old man is the only mainstream candidate that most closely matches our beliefs, this country has spent decades stamping out leftist movements with red scare, breaking up unions, slashing social safety nets, etc. We aren't going to compromise over something we consider insignificant.
But Bernie isn't a socialist superhero either. We should be trying to organize in more direct ways. It's easy to say that but hard to be the first to lead the charge.
But Bernie isn't a socialist superhero either. We should be trying to organize in more direct ways. It's easy to say that but hard to be the first to lead the charge.
There was legitimate concern over Hillary's emails, but mostly they were used to poison discourse. Plenty of legitimate concerns are used to poison discourse. The hyperbole itself is dishonest, which is what bad faith is all about.
Exactly. It's crazy to be tearing down a candidate over something like this in the face of what we're up against. The enemy is Trump, not Bernie Sanders.
Yeah this is something centrists are having a lot harder time remembering than they should.
i'm sorry you're only allowed to deploy this argument when you don't like how a candidate wants to privatize medicare or raise the retirement age or something, not in service of someone who wants good things
Well, I'll call thst progress.
The thing is, he *is* a 78 year old man who *did* have a heart attack. Convergent evolution of phrasing is not a conspiracy.
As for whether or not it's a scandal, that's not really something that can be dictated effectively by anybody. If people decide that they're scandalized over it, that makes it so. You can argue that they shouldn't be so worried about it, but I don't think it's true that they actually aren't, by and large.
Two thoughts on this: first, a candidate is more than a platform. To argue to an extreme (I'm not trying to suggest this is likely), if Bernie were to drop dead Octover 1st, his platform and policies wouldn't count for much. Or, to use a less dramatic example, if you don't trust Bernie as a person implicitly, maybe his decision to reverse himself here is giving you the nerves a little. Both are fine reasons to be concerned, and should probably addressed as if they're real things people really believe, not just dismissed as obviously disingenuous, because that really doesn't accomplish much and it's unprovable anyway.
Secondly, I don't think it's ever a good idea to put a candidate up on a pedastal. All of these people have problems, and it's important not to become so wrapped up in defending and arguing over them that we seek to minimize those issues. Stuff like "if you like Sanders platform this shouldn't matter at all" is bad because it doesn't leave people room to hold nuanced views on the candidate. You can't be a Bernie supporter who wants him to release the records, you have to be ALL In or you're no supporter at all. It's silly.
This is an interesting example and it reminds me that I should have been peppering a caveat into my statements: none of what I said applies to Republicans. They actually are full of shit all the time. If a Republican says it, definitely feel free to ignore/ridicule it. It's when other Democrats or people on the left say it that good faith engagement becomes reasonable.
I get what you're saying, but it's not a secret why this didn't become a major concern for most news pundits until Bernie started doing very well in the polls and getting endorsements very recently. That's why I don't think that it's likely to affect anyone's perception of things, his supporters can see through stuff like that.
And it's definitely unfair, but I think it's a definitely a good thing as well in this case.
Wow, you honestly think people are going to fall for this okeydoke. We all see what you said, now you're telling us you didn't say what you said.
That's gaslighting, bruh.
OP
OP
Oh. Is this the "everyone who doesn't have Sanders as their first choice is a centrist moment"?
Cool.
Yup. And another user was just straight up calling people antisemitic if they're concerned about the health issue. Great stuff.
Looks to me like you wrote that.
More bad faith posting from Mercury.