(Part 3) Top products from r/SandersForPresident

> Christian world view

For most of the history of America, Christianity was intimately tied with expanded social programs to help the needy, and moral issues were mostly left out of politics.

Knowing that they could not compete with Christianity and its support of the New Deal, big business leaders who did not benefit from it began to form think tanks to work up a strategy to counteract it. To clarify, a think tank is an institute that performs research intended to promote a specific world view. Essentially, these business leaders and millionaires paid scientists to figure out the best way to "sell" conservativism to the vast majority of Christian liberals and convince them to vote against their own self-interest (and, I would argue, the teachings of Jesus Christ).

One of the most famous players in this production was Paul Weyrich. His big breakthrough in think tank research was that by tying conservative economic policy with (manufactured) moral imperatives, he could convince people that liberal policy was immoral, which has a much stronger cognitive effect than convincing people that a certain policy is illogical or against their best interest. For example, you might avoid calling your mother a bad word, even if she deserves it, because you find it immoral to disrespect your parents - even though doing so may be very logical and may make you feel very good.

So they set to work on testing and developing moral arguments against liberal economic policy. If you do some reading into the output of those think tanks, I think you may find that many of your viewpoints align very closely with the talking points they spent very good money to scientifically develop and hone to be the most convincing.

They also did another very successful trick, which is to tie social issues that many Christians had strong feelings about - abortion, gay rights, interracial marriage - to their economic policy, despite the fact that they had little to no connection. (Quick - what's the connection between lower taxes and not allowing gay people to marry?)

If you, or anyone else, is interested in reading more, here are some good resources:

1. The official trailer for the film Common Ground: Christians and the Message of Bernie Sanders
   
   
2. The Gospel of Bernie Tumblr, run by a Liberty University alum. I suggest starting at the bottom of the page to read the oldest posts first.
   
   
3. Here is Bernie's full speech at Jerry Falwell's conservative, evangelical Christian Liberty University.
   
   
4. Read the aforementioned Wikipedia article on Paul Weyrich.
   
   
5. article (Politico): The Real Origins of the Religious Right
   
   
6. article (The Christian Left Blog): The History of the "Christian" Right
   
   
7. podcast (The Best of the Left): History of the Christian Right
   
   
8. book (George Lakoff): Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think

Hi there. Several years ago during his first run, taking a look at Bernie Sanders and his policies ultimately converted me from a social moderate/economic conservative to full-blown progressive. The "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak for me was the issue of healthcare. I had continually felt that the Affordable Care Act's mandate for people to buy health insurance was wrong/unconstitutional. However, I am a nurse, so I could clearly see that our healthcare system in this country is broken and in need of fixing.

So I did research. I actually posted on Reddit on /r/changemyview regarding the healthcare issue. I read the book Healing of America by T. R. Reid and realized something that has ultimately changed my worldview.

My vote hinges on a candidate's view of healthcare. Medicare for All as proposed by Bernie Sanders is the path to providing healthcare to all citizens. This sounds like a radical idea, but it's not. In fact, it is the financially conservative option. As a nation we spend roughly twice as much on healthcare per person per year than any other nation, yet our outcomes are poorer. Our people are obese and ill compared to pretty much every other nation. Our newborn death rate and maternal death rates are high, and for the first time recently our life expectancy in this country is dropping because our health is so poor. Despite the massive amount of money we spend to get healthcare, our care sucks. Health insurance does not improve anything--insurance companies are the middle man. They love to take money but hate to pay out for care.

With Medicare for All, we will be bringing national spending in line with other developed nations. Eliminating insurance companies will eliminate co-pays both for employers and for individuals. Drug prices and treatment prices will by necessity go down because of the power of collective negotiating, and the American public will be the largest negotiating power you can imagine, keeping prices low and affordable. Individuals will not have to pay exorbitant insurance premiums as well as co-pays or co-insurance amounts, which will stimulate the economy by putting money back in your paycheck. Businesses will likewise not have to pay premiums for their employees, which could enable them to pay employees more (not likely but possible) or would give business additional profit (a lot more likely and business-friendly).

Yes, taxes would go up, but it would still be less than your insurance costs now equating to more money in your pocket. Additionally EVERY doctor, EVERY hospital, and pretty much EVERY treatment would be covered. More to the point, people would be able to seek preventative care and manage chronic illnesses, emergency department/hospital utilization would go down, people would be healthier overall, could work longer in their lives and contribute to productivity if that's an argument that appeals to you.

Insurance companies would largely fall by the wayside, but Sanders has plans for transitioning these employees into other/related fields, and some insurance companies might still exist as they do in other countries in order to pay for cosmetic or elective surgeries, etc. Medicare for All would also cover vision and dental, which currently even with insurance are expensive and have poor coverage. As someone with both vision and dental chronic issues that is huge for me as well.

People could get whatever medical care they need without having to worry about money. That is extremely powerful to me as someone who sees people die from lack of being able to afford insulin, chemotherapy, or medications for chronic manageable diseases. I would be willing to pay more in taxes than I am now if I knew everyone would benefit from universal healthcare. But the great thing is, I'd end up paying LESS than I am now and so would my employer.

While I like almost everything Bernie has to say, this is my premier issue upon which he originally earned my vote and has kept it and will continue to keep it if he has to run again in the future. I'd love to speak more about it and can definitely answer questions.

I commend you for seeking information in an open-minded and courteous way. I will warn you that if you look more into things Bernie has been saying for years, you may find your current worldviews challenged as I did. You may find yourself afraid/uncertain as I did. You may find yourself changing just by learning more about all these issues as I did. Keep an open mind, keep learning, keep asking questions.

Not OP but I am a jazz musician. Yes and no. Be aware that a music career doesn't just automatically happen because you are a good enough musician, unless you're incredible or incredibly lucky. I HIGHLY recommend reading the book Beyond Talent before deciding on music as a career. You will have to act as your own booking agent, social media manager, and tons of other bullshit until you are a self-sustaining business. Or get picked up by someone already nationally known if you want to be a sideman, but that doesn't happen as often as it used to 50 and even 25 years ago. Also, be ready for private lessons to be a major part of your income for a while, possibly forever.

Lol. I'm sorry. If it's any consolation, mine was Clinton. And that was a weird time, what with Perot and all...

I'm just a history geek. But I'm also kind of fixated on how religion sort of ebbs and flows through American politics/culture. There's a couple really good books out there on it.

But it's always interesting to me how it plays a role in the background. And it's even more interesting to me how the whole time everyone tries to claim everything from the Pilgrims to the Founders as supporting whatever their religion at the time actually is...

You can reach out to u/ocherthulu on Reddit, and in addition to offering his own insights, he can refer you to colleagues at RIT and elsewhere. His comment here (link) might be a good starting point.

 

The link in the above comment goes to the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (link), and they should be able to provide you with some policy insights.

 


The Autism Self-Advocacy Network (link) also offers guidelines for policy makers and can refer you to experts with relevant knowledge and experience.

 

You may also benefit from the insights offered by Administration for Community Living's (link) public affairs officers. You should get in contact with them.

 

The link on Medicare is an essay by Andrea Louise Campbell at MIT (link), so that may be another place to look for good public policy research.

 

Of course, there are disabled people in your local community who should be at the forefront of any policy discussion, but these are good resources for giving you some background in the policy conversation so you have some grounding to prepare for meeting with them.

When Nixon and Kennedy debated, at the first televised presidential debates, microphone volume and height, podium height, set up of stage-- were all examined and debated between parties beforehand. This fact is covered many times in books like this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Debates-Kennedy-Nixon/dp/0253326311

The audio-visual details of presidential debates have always been closely examined by all involved parties. It is perfectly possible that Sanders was just too tall for the microphone, it is also possible that Univision lowered the volume and/or sensitivity of his mic. Not tinfoil hat at all, especially considering who the chairman of Univision is.

Do you have any evidence for the claim that people in general would rather not work? This site says that 25% of American residents volunteer, and I'd imagine that that would increase significantly if people weren't working for pay and suddenly had 40+ more hours of free time in their week.

I also recall reading an argument here saying that women in the past volunteered at higher levels, before it was common for women to work.

I just don't think it's true that most people would willingly stay at home doing nothing rather than contributing to the world in some way. I'd like to see some evidence in support of your claims.

It's not about race as much as seeing ourself in the person influencing us.

We are more strongly influenced be people we perceive as similar to ourselves. Even in bizarre situations. For instance in hotel rooms, signs that say, "75 percent of the guests who stayed in room 312 reused their towels" are more influential at getting people to reuse towels than other ways of encouraging people. Seems outlandish but true.

From the book Nudge by Richard Thaler - some of you may know him from the Selena Gomez scene in The Big Short
http://smile.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X?sa-no-redirect=1

His views pretty much sound the same as mine (I grew up evangelical, but have since changed).

If you haven't already, a good book to read is "America's Four Gods: What We Say about God—and What That Says about Us" by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader.

This book puts belief in God/god on a two-dimensional coordinate system (active/passive in the world vs. judgmental/nonjudgmental), using the huge data from the national Baylor Religion Survey, and looks at how these beliefs influence moral, political and other beliefs (they also have atheism as a control/contrast). Looking at this was really eye-opening to see why some people believe the way they do, especially how many fundamentalists and evangelical conservatives believe in an Authoritative God (active and judgmental); this authoritative view carries over into their political views, parenting styles and more.

I think when talking about politics with ANYONE it is good to remember that all humans are emotional first, and rational second.

Rider and the elephant.

book recommendation on the subject

edit: check your local libraries.

Hah, a politician with sleeves rolled up, in a barn or other rural setting where it's not a fake foto op, like with Beto and Tom Steyer - who?.

The filibuster book is kind of a ramble, obviously.

Reich's Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few is pretty devastating and echoes many of Bernie's themes. The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future by Joseph Stiglitz is good too. And Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land.

i would just challenge all of you to read about jeff bezos there's a really good book about him https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Store-Jeff-Bezos-Amazon/dp/0316219266

it's more a critique of bezos but it kind of gives you more context regarding the type of person he is

The book of rev was discarded as heresy until it was championed for it's ability to target heretics by labeling them anti-Christs. There was a ton of other apocalyptic literature at the time that never made canon for good reason. Any Christian who's done research on the early church, yet still believes in the rapture doctrine, is fucking 110% delusional by their own standards; at least Islam is consistent in their madness. Elaine Pagels wrote a fantastic, short book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.ca/Revelations-Visions-Prophecy-Politics-Revelation/dp/0143121634

I don't think you're being fair. I referenced labor laws and civil rights for a reason. These things weren't handed to us. People fought really hard for them. This is probably the most informative book that covers this part of American history and it's a really fascinating read.

It's like, just think of what working conditions used to be like for people until they started mass protesting, going on strikes, boycotting, forming unions. Google about The Wobblies and about Eugene V. Debs. Read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. These things are important to know about. And you can really see first hand how much influence people wound up having. There were so many rights we didn't have back then that we have now because of the dedication and activism of former generations.

That's why I personally disagree with the idea that participating could ever amount to jack. We'd still be living in the same conditions as our ancestors if the public hadn't participated---as they are meant to in a democracy.

Are you open to books about it?

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
  
  
  
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/17/kansas-where-the-gop-civil-war-began-long-before-the-tea-party/
  
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Shaping-Our-Nation-Migration-Transformed/dp/0307461513
  
  
  
• http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62629.Conservatives_Without_Conscience
  
  
  
• http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
  
  
  Those are what I can think of off the top of my head, but I know I'm forgetting some...
  

Here is a much more relevant and practical book.

>I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Wikileaks is no friend to America

Again. The entire way you're framing that is exactly like neocons in the early 2000's.

You should read the book called Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First. I am sure you will find yourself agreeing with the neocon more than you think.

Yeah, the pedophilia thing is the most disturbing. It makes The The Handmaid's Tale and Future Home of the Living God seem plausible.

Do you understand why we even support Sanders here? Your post history has almost nothing in this sub, other than this very thread, and a lot of your many recent posts are just defending the Fed.

If you disagree with Sanders, his positions, and me, that's fine. But don't link me to things and say I'm being ridiculous as if I'm some child. If you want to say, "Hey, you're wrong/are a little ill-informed, why not read this and tell me what you think from this perspective?," I'd be open up to that. I'm okay with being wrong and learning new things. But you don't do that, because you don't care to change real opinions, you want to look tuff on the Innernets for dem karma.

Here, I can do it, too. Why don't you start here if you don't want to say anything ridiculous?

Side note: I didn't mean to say or imply Dimon personally got any money from it, but that places he was associated with did. It's an appearance of corruption, and in my view actual corruption, for that to take place.