I wholeheartedly agree with this, but unfortunately profit comes first and foremost, and most people don't seem to have the desire or attention span to sit through or try to understand complex debates. That's likely why things are structured the way they are, and that most likely won't change until people change and become more responsible in regards to their future. At the very least, the highlights of these debates might spark some interest and get some people to do some independent research into various issues and candidates' take on them.
And yeah, it does seem elementary, but at the end of the day, nearly all of these issues have roots going back to wealth inequality and the ultra wealthy. You can have all the meticulously detailed plans you want, but if you can't pass them, there's pretty much no point. Not to say that having well thought out plans is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the issue isn't really that we don't have plans, but that we're prevented from passing them. As things currently stand, a few have acquired so much wealth that they literally bought out the entire system. Voters tend to be on board with all of the current trending plans, like Medicare for all, but it's congress that doesn't even begin to attempt to vote on them, let alone implement them. None of these things were even in the national conversation prior to 2016.
What Bernie did was bring these issues to light, and put concepts like free college or healthcare in the mainstream. And they've been gaining voter approval ever since. However, all of these ideas steps on the toes of those who benefit from the current system. People who have tremendous influence over politics and the like, and have been actively trying to shut these movements down. As Bernie has stated, this is not something he can fix alone, and requires everyone to get involved. However, it seems like a lot of people are trying to prop him up as a messiah of sorts, and believe he will lead the People's Party and crush the two party system. That's not really possible, as not only is the system rigged to prevent third parties, but our government is structured to prevent a single individual from having that kind of power.
So before we can go about doing anything, we need to hammer into people's heads that they need to be the ones to get up and do something. The only thing that can stand up to that kind of power, is a united voter front, akin to other movements like the Civil Rights movement. That's why he continues to harp on about wealth inequality, because he can't do this by himself, when his peers are incentivized to oppose him.
Now he could be better about articulating
why wealth inequality and taking power from the ultra rich is important and the first step in implementing any plans, how taxing the rich weakens their power while putting more money back into circulation, and that taxes themselves are less about directly funding these plans, and more about breaking the corporate stranglehold on government, by limiting their ability to bribe congress. Hopefully, he'll work on that.
I don't mean to imply I have objective evidence on this, I meant more that my personal take on this is that he is agnostic. Like this
article for instance, chronicles some of his statements on the matter. It seems to me he won't commit on whether he does or doesn't have faith, preferring to highlight the common theme of being a good person in all these religions. Now you could say he just doesn't want to frame things in any particular religion's lens, thereby indirectly propping up that religion, or you could say this is a cynical ploy, due to the general consensus being you need to have some kind of faith to be successful in American politics, to mislead people into thinking he is religious, without outright admitting it.
I personally believe it's that he's a true agnostic. He doesn't have strong religious leanings, but doesn't dismiss it outright or want to deny other people's faith, as opposed to Atheism.
I legitimately have no idea what he looks for. His 2016 pick wasn't someone I knew or heard of and haven't since. I get the feeling his staff pushes him on things like this, because it often feels like he's not very adept when it comes to things like optics and organization. I fee like he's more of a policy and engineering type, not a social and team player type, so I wouldn't be surprised if his staff is what makes these decisions.
Despite Gabbard being lumped in with the rest of the Progressives, I never got the feeling like she and Bernie really collaborate or work together behind the scenes. I'm not sure she is part of his "group" so to speak, in the same way Ro Khanna and AOC would be. So I don't know that she would really be considered. As far as Warren goes, that would be a safe bet, given they're long time friends with similar views, but I would agree that it would be a little awkward to try to make a strong rival your VP pick. It seems to me the establishment and Third Way types are finally reading the writing on the wall, in regards to the voters current feelings, and are low key trying to push Warren. Likely because they believe she will be easier to mold and influence. If this continues, not only will she make it far, but she might actually become the nominee, with blessings from both sides. So I think it would be very difficult to make her his VP.
As for what I think he should pick, I think that Progressives are very few, so those who currently hold office should stay there, so they can maintain as much influence as possible. It's difficult to get new ones in, so we need to keep as many remaining ones in as possible. So in that regard, I think he should look towards members of the Progressive community that both have some name recognition and experience working politics, like campaign staff or committee members, but don't currently hold office. Maybe people similar to those like Nina Turner and other big names among Progressives, but I don't know enough about these individuals to give specific endorsements.
I think overall, sincerity and genuineness is going to be very important. There are very few that have a record of consistency even remotely close to Bernie's level, and I don't think the VP needs to be as "pure" as the President, but we need to not do things like "appeasement" candidates for the establishment, similar to how Obama made Hilary his Secretary of State to appease her supporters. I think faith in politicians was already incredibly low, and Obama really did a number on people who got excited over the prospect of change. As I stated before, the most important thing is to get people invested and energized to come out and vote, because Republicans, Donald Trump, and the establishment in general win in low turnout situations. The less reasons you can give an already very jaded and cynical voter base to doubt, the better.
So while I can't give any specific names, I think this decision needs to be made with the criteria listed above. Bernie absolutely has the potential to easily crush any opposition, it's just that his base is an eclectic mishmash of Progressives, Independents, and voters with very different outlooks and reasons for voting for him, that it can be difficult to get everyone to turnout in enough numbers to not force a tie or allow any rigging to affect the end results. I feel like the battle isn't really against anyone one candidate, but the laziness and jadedness of the voters themselves. I mean just think of what could have happened if all the Independents that supported him, swallowed their pride and temporarily changed their affiliation to Democrat in closed primary states.
The fact that the only rust belt state that didn't have a closed primary, Michigan, was the state he completely blew out Hilary, despite the polls saying the complete opposite, should go to show how much things like that skewed the overall results. That's why we need as many people as possible to be involved, so we can overcome things like that.
No? Why would you even assume that? I didn't pay much attention to your "tirade", because a lot of it is already debunked Red Scare propaganda type stuff, and because of all the posts I've seen on this site, yours is by far the most difficult to read. Bernie's not Marxist, Communist, or a fan of the Soviet Union. He proclaims himself to be a Democratic Socialist, but most experts say his views are more inline with a Social Democrat, which puts him inline with most of the rest of the first world. Whatever you were going on about was complete nonsense.
Please don't randomly assume stuff about a poster who never even interacted with you.
He "hasn't gotten anything done" because the policies he's proposing are in direct confrontation with the rich and powerful. Despite arguing that the Iraq War was going to be a major disaster, his pleas fell on deaf ears, because Cheney and Co. needed their oil money. Lo and behold, it did become a disaster and every Democratic politician associated with that decision, has been trying to distance themselves from it, and put the blame solely on the Republicans.
You can't "get anything done" when your peers are actively working against you, because their own personal profit is more important, than whether or not something is sensible or helpful.
How about because their friends, families, the culture and social norms they grew up with, are all where they currently live? People don't look at a list of pros and cons of each country and move to the one with the most pros and least cons. That would mean moving to a country where nobody knows you, you don't know the culture, don't know how to navigate social situations, has a diet you may not like, and might not even speak the same language as you. Most people prefer to live in the country they grew up in. Even if said country has a lot of issues that need addressing.
It is also not entirely impossible to try to improve the country you live in.
Oh boy, don't tell me you're a fellow poor person, that has a strange need to constantly shill for the rich. People don't need a $10,000 coffee table they can't set anything on, for fear of scratching the surface. They need healthcare, education, jobs, a roof over their heads, food to eat, etc. Things they can't get because some people need a swimming pool in their swimming pool, before handing off their fortune to idiot kids, who then blow it all on failed business ventures/decisions, because nepotism is cancer.
"hurr you're just jealous" is an incredibly juvenile way of dismissing things. Nobody's jealous of those clowns, not when you can actually do something productive, instead of just mindlessly hoarding material wealth. People are angry, because the trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens aren't circulating back into the economy, which causes problems for the rest of us. There is zero point in desiring more wealth than you could possibly spend in several lifetimes, especially when that deprives others of basic necessities.
