ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , Bernie Sanders , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 26th February 2019, 01:24 PM   #281
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,212
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So, a two-term president is considered an "anomaly"?

What you're saying is that you're never wrong because when you are wrong its just an 'anomaly'?

Oh, and by the way, it seems like you ignored my other points... that the success of the Democrats in that time period may not simply to do with their 'left wing/progressive' policies... the fact that FRD was a 'wartime' president (which increases popularity), the fact that Democrat's policies at the time were not always as "progressive" as you might think.


Yet he didn't run as a democrat, did he.

Eisenhower was a moderate as republicans go. But he wasn't "far left". Yet voters took a look at his (not far left) policies and said "Yup, I want that". Hmmm... a centrist won an election. Wonder if there's a lesson in there anywhere.
Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own. He was a far leftwinger by today's standards. He taxed the rich at 90%. Other Republicans thought he must be a communist! LOL

https://www.insidethegate.com/2011/0...r-a-communist/
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 01:28 PM   #282
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,755
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own. He was a far leftwinger by today's standards. He taxed the rich at 90%. Other Republicans thought he must be a communist! LOL

https://www.insidethegate.com/2011/0...r-a-communist/
LOL

Your link doesn't actually support the claim that other Republicans thought he must be a communist. It just repeats the claim. And even then, the claim is that "some elements of the far-right fringe" thought that. Not Republicans. Not the right. Not even the far right. Not even the far-right fringe. Just some elements.

That's the claim, and it's not even supported. I'm sure you could find "some elements" of a far-fringe anything that believe in some arbitrary extremism. But your link doesn't even do that.

Try again.

Last edited by theprestige; 26th February 2019 at 01:32 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #283
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
[i]...If being "progressive" is such a sure-fire ticket to electoral victory, why did it not work for Mondale? He supported the ERA. Wanted a nuclear freeze. Picked a woman as his running mate (who was criticized for being pro-choice). Talked about raising taxes and the 'unfairness' of the economy under Reagan. Sounds to me like he was 'progressive'.

And he was slaughtered in the 1984 election. Barely won even his own state in the general election. If being "far left" liberal is the key to victory for the Democrats, why did it fail for Mondale?
First, voicing support for a few progressive policies, especially with mere weak-sauce campaign rhetoric , instead of a lifetime record of fighting for the same causes, does not a Progressive make. Secondly, even being a strong, committed progressive (which Mondale wasn't) isn't going to overcome being a very boring, awkward public speaker prone to gaffs (Did you not see Chevy Chase's contemporaneous imitations of him on SNL?), who was already burdened by being Carter's Veep in an administration that was murdered by Reagan's misinformation campaign (not to mention the failed Iranian hostage rescue followed by Reagan's illegal shenanigans to get Iran to hold the American Hostages until after his election).

Progressive policies are generally very popular (much moreso than austerity policies certainly), but they aren't, by themselves, going to reverse the fate of a bad candidate mired in bad circumstances against a popular sitting President, and regardless of how many, if not most, of us feel about Reagan today, His approval rating was above 50% with disapproval in the 30s when he ran for re-election (very similar to Clinton's at his re-election in '96).
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 26th February 2019 at 02:22 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:36 PM   #284
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,212
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
LOL

Your link doesn't actually support the claim that other Republicans thought he must be a communist. It just repeats the claim. And even then, the claim is that "some elements of the far-right fringe" thought that. Not Republicans. Not the right. Not even the far right. Not even the far-right fringe. Just some elements.

That's the claim, and it's not even supported. I'm sure you could find "some elements" of a far-fringe anything that believe in some arbitrary extremism. But your link doesn't even do that.

Try again.
Ike was ideologically in line with the democrats, who wanted to run him as one of their own.

Do you dispute that?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:56 PM   #285
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,755
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Ike was ideologically in line with the democrats, who wanted to run him as one of their own.

Do you dispute that?
I dispute your claim that Republicans thought he was a communist.

Try again without moving your goalposts.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 03:15 PM   #286
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yes, Ike was an anomaly. He was a Republican who the Democrats wanted to run as their own.
Yet, once again, as I pointed out, he ran as a republican. You know, as a guy who wasn't a democrat.
Quote:
He was a far leftwinger by today's standards.
"Today's Standards" are irrelevant. What is relevant is how he would have fit on the political spectrum in the middle of the 20th century.
Quote:
He taxed the rich at 90%.
Yes and no. At best that statement is misleading.

It is true... the U.S. did have a marginal income tax rate of 91%. But that doesn't mean that your average rich person would have paid that much of their income. That 91% applies to ONLY to the "last dollar" earned; much of their income would have been taxed at a lower rater. Furthermore, it also ignores the effects of various tax deductions, other taxes (e.g. city/state), income vs. capital gains, etc. In effect, the effective tax burden was much lower (closer to 40%. Perhaps a bit higher than what they pay today, but nowhere near the 91% under Eisenhower.).

It should also be pointed out that that tax rate would have only affected the super-wealthy. There were many people that would still be considered "rich" by the standards of the day but would be nowhere near the 91% marginal tax rate.

Oh, and by the way, the marginal tax rate under FDR (you know, the democrat) actually peaked at 94%, higher than under (republican) Eisenhower.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...r-eisenhower-/

Also, keep in mind that in other areas of domestic and financial policy, Eisenhower was far from a "far-left liberal". For example, he acted to limit the influence of labor unions, launched a campaign to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, believed in free markets, and even though he may have fought against racism, he didn't extend that to gay rights (bringing in a ban against homosexuals). Simply pointing to the tax rate and shouting "Look how progressive he was" is rather foolish.

Eisenhower was not some "democrat in republican clothing". He was a moderate republican, holding some policies that were preferred by the republicans, and a few that were not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...olumn/2343963/

And once again, I note that you ignored the fact that at least some of the success that the democrats had in the mid-20th century can be attributed to factors other than "gee wiz, we really like their progressive policies".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 03:16 PM   #287
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,008
The biggest issues defining progressivism at the moment are the economy, health care which is another part of the economic issue anyway, college expenses which are another part of the economic issue too, and military interventionism. The bad trends progressives now point to in the economy date back to the 1970s or 1980s as when they just got started, so it was easier back then to just not see what was happening yet. Global warming hadn't really gotten going yet either. And how many foreign countries were we not just maintaining military bases in, but actually carrying out military missions against, and for how long, compared to how many we have going now and how long they've been going?

You can't expect politics in one era to be dominated by the people's desire for solutions to another era's problems.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 03:20 PM   #288
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,537
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 03:28 PM   #289
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Ike was ideologically in line with the democrats, who wanted to run him as one of their own.

Do you dispute that?
Only if the democrats were a bunch of anti-union free-marketers who wanted to deport illegal immigrants and ban homosexuals from working for the government.

But lets say he did decide to run as a Democrat. The fact that he was comfortable enough in the republican party would suggest he was not a far-left progressive in the mold of Bernie Sanders, but a more moderate politician in the mold of Clinton. His victory is not any proof of how "far left policies are the road to victory"... just the opposite. They suggest that appealing to the center has value.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 04:13 PM   #290
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.

Makes as much sense as saying we need to run Hillary again in 2020 or Trump will be reelected.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 04:15 PM   #291
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,755
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
He taxed the rich at 90%.
No he did not. Congress sets tax rates, not the President.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 04:22 PM   #292
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
Really?! I have no animosity or contempt for moderates or centrists in general. I do occasionally react to the manner and tone I perceive from individuals and there do seem to be some who profess Moderation or Centrism with a very disdainful and contemptuous manner toward Progressivism and those advocating it. I recall several such people repeatedly telling me in 2016 that they didn't need the Progressive vote and didn't care who we voted for as they were going to pull most of the moderate Republicans to support them against Trump, and then after most of us did vote for their candidate and no moderate Republicans did), they tried to blame the loss of their horrible candidate and election of the little-handed orange Jabba-the-Hut wannabe on us, can't get much more contemptuous than that. But I don't hold that against the party, centrism or moderation, I blame the idiots doing the talking not ideologies most them don't seem to actually understand (or agree with) in the first place.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 04:23 PM   #293
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No he did not. Congress sets tax rates, not the President.
Who signs bills into law?
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 05:14 PM   #294
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,008
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.
I'm not sure 1 case is enough to make the assertion odd. But hundreds and hundreds of cases from trying to follow exactly that advice for years is certainly enough to make the assertion utterly absurd.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 05:33 PM   #295
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,755
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Who signs bills into law?
It's a team effort, actually. Checks and balances. Congress has the final say on what the laws are, though.

Anyway, taxes went up during the Depression, and went up some more during World War II. Roosevelt already had a 94% tax rate in 1944, and was asking Congress for 100%. As far as I can tell, that taxation level remained the status quo through the Truman administration, and was inherited by Eisenhower. It's not like taxes were relatively low, and then RINO Eisenhower jumps into the Oval Office and says, "let me jack up them taxes!"

I think this idea that Eisenhower should have fought for radical reduction of federal taxes is anachronistic. Congress and the President were both looking for revenue to pay for postwar recovery and stay competitive in the Cold War. Taxes did come down over time, but given the historical context, I don't consider it a mark against Eisenhower that he didn't fight Congress over the typical tax rate of the period.

tl;dr - Republican president inherits ridiculously high tax rates (by modern standards, but much more reasonable in their proper historical context) from back-to-back Democrat administrations, doesn't fight Congress to lower them. Congress gradually lowers the tax rate over time anyway.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 07:41 PM   #296
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a team effort, actually. Checks and balances. Congress has the final say on what the laws are, though...
Sounds about right to my understandings, at least so long as the president doesn't ever get a line-item veto power. Congress passes bills, the president either signs the bills into law, or he vetoes them. Vetoed bills go back to congress, if they override the veto the bill becomes law, and as far as I know the bill becomes a law, and I'm assuming it does so without a signature.


The rest of your post sounds generally in accord with my historical understandings as well, I just wanted to make sure we were operating from similar background understandings.

Ike, to my perceptions was largely a non-partisan military man who favored some progressive ideas and preferences, but his essence was as a very moderate Republican (who frequently argued against the further right fringes of his day) and they were a large (if not the largest) part of the party through the '70s (with some exceptions, of course). The Dem party however, has almost always been made up of mostly neoliberals with a variable percentage of progressive influences and practices, but very few Progressive members or leaders.

my definitions of the terms I am using are probably in order here:

Liberalism - a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Neoliberalism - a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism

Progressive - the application of rigorous analysis to reform current public policies to achieve more efficient and effective public policies addressing the needs and rights of the population.

Progressive Economics - understandings rooted in the concept of social justice which have the goal of improving the human condition often through government-based economic central planning. Economic progressivism is based on the idea that free markets are inherently unfair, favoring large corporations and the wealthy.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US are neoliberal organizations, and both to varying extents and focus upon personal and social freedoms, pay homage to liberalism and free-market economics.

Progressivism is more of a process used to analyze and reform public policy while focused on providing efficient policies organized around the precepts of social justice and improving the human condition.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:00 AM   #297
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,361
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.

Makes as much sense as saying we need to run Hillary again in 2020 or Trump will be reelected.
Exactly. I mean, how hard is this to understand?
__________________
Your grandchildren will be brown, trans, and Islamo-Communist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:29 AM   #298
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Watch out you might get what you're after...

"Bernie Sanders staff shake-up: Top strategists leave his presidential campaign" - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...mpaign-n976221

Quote:
...And the firm has come under criticism from Sanders allies for the money they made from Sanders and his small-dollar fundraising machine in 2016, with $5.3 million in direct payments to the firm from the campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission reports.

Meanwhile, Sanders has pledged to diversify the top ranks of his campaign.

"We have been criticized, correctly so, for running a campaign that was too white and too male-oriented, and that is going to change," Sanders said in a recent interview with The Young Turks.
There is a slight push trying to "pick at the wallpaper to see if there's a crack underneath." From what I can tell, the timing and final decision was not fully anticipated this early and it may well have been precipitated by the release of the Primary Debate schedule. That's only what, 4 months out from now!?
A lot of this other scuttlebutt was in the Sander's post-mortem 2016 discussions back in early 2017. Neither side seems bitter or hurt, merely trying to move on to their 2020 goals and vision. I'm sure there will be more written. I'm interested in seeing who all else he brings in and what he's planning throughout the rest of this year.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:24 AM   #299
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,621
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 09:15 AM   #300
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 09:22 AM   #301
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,669
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Seriously? Are you trying to support an argument that all, or even many, of the slaves in the south were supporting the policies of the Confederate States of America and that they so hated the policies of the USA that they supported the CSA and their war of exodus from the USA?
That's... I can't fathom how you could possibly conclude this. Did you miss the smiley? Did you not get the reference?

Sheesh. Were you in dire need of outrage that morning?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 09:39 AM   #302
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Quote:
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.
The 2016 election was a single data point, so its not really indicative of what would happen in future elections. Furthermore, there were certain... issues that the Democrats had to deal with at the time, that had nothing to do with how "moderate" they were.

In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference

All of those are going to be things that negatively affect a candidate, regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum. Trying to suggest the loss in 2016 was due to the Democrat's "moderation" is to ignore much of what was going on at the time.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 10:24 AM   #303
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,915
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.
Are you assuming that applecorped's unsupported claim is true at face value? Or did you independently fact-check?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 10:39 AM   #304
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Quote:
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
Quote:
Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.
Are you assuming that applecorped's unsupported claim is true at face value? Or did you independently fact-check?
What reason would applecorped (who seems to be a Trump supporter) have in trying to cause problems in the Democratic party?

Oh, right.

Hadn't heard of Ebersole before. Looks like she is a low-level Democrat executive (The Baltimore County democratic chair, who is married to a congress-critter.) She was at a meeting where she asked Sanders about his health care plans, not exactly a 'gotcha' type question.

So you had 1) a person who, by their position, would be someone you would expect at a 'town hall' meeting, 2) asking a question which was pretty basic.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...226-story.html
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 10:44 AM   #305
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,915
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
What reason would applecorped (who seems to be a Trump supporter) have in trying to cause problems in the Democratic party?

Oh, right.

Hadn't heard of Ebersole before. Looks like she is a low-level Democrat executive (The Baltimore County democratic chair, who is married to a congress-critter.) She was at a meeting where she asked Sanders about his health care plans, not exactly a 'gotcha' type question.

So you had 1) a person who, by their position, would be someone you would expect at a 'town hall' meeting, 2) asking a question which was pretty basic.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...226-story.html
Indeed. I (briefly) fact-checked before I posted. Even in my sampling of the right-wing echo chamber, the "Hillary shill" aspect wasn't mentioned.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:07 PM   #306
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference
Your point is valid that there were other factors. There always are. Nonetheless the evidence points towards a more progressive candidate and stance having a better chance than the moderate type we saw from Clinton and the DNC in 2016.

Aside from the democratic defeat we've seen polling that Sanders had better odds in a matchup vs Trump. Sanders polled as the most popular politician. The rising stars with huge popularity such as AOC are also progressive. The DNC and the presidential hopefuls this time around have all gone left towards policies and ideas Sanders supported. The blue wave in 2018 saw a huge number of progressive candidates winning, often in spite of gerrymandering and other nefarious tactics. Most of the progressive policies that people like Sanders and AOC stand for share majority support among Americans.

A moderate may beat Trump this time around. But the idea that unless we run another moderate, Trump will for sure win reelection just doesn't make sense.

Last edited by The_Animus; 27th February 2019 at 12:08 PM.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:32 PM   #307
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Your point is valid that there were other factors. There always are. Nonetheless the evidence points towards a more progressive candidate and stance having a better chance than the moderate type we saw from Clinton and the DNC in 2016.

Aside from the democratic defeat we've seen polling that Sanders had better odds in a matchup vs Trump. Sanders polled as the most popular politician.
How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans. Heck, republican politicians were more likely to praise him than attack him. And that would have changed had he won the nomination.

Why exactly do you think it is that the Republicans weren't attacking Sanders with as much ferocity as they attacked Clinton? Is it because they had nothing to use against him? (No, they had a ton of material.) The reason they didn't is because they thought they could slaughter him in a general election. They wanted him to win the primaries because he would be easier to defeat in a general election. He wouldn't be "Bernie Sanders, the scrappy outsider trying to become the people's president", it would be "Comrade Sanders, the Jewish Atheist thief who thinks its great that Americans should die (unless they're women, in which case they should be sexually assaulted first)". All of which are actually supported by evidence. Just what do you think would happen to his popularity then?

(Oh, and by the way, despite claims that "people love socialist policies", there is a poll showing 76% people do not like the word socialist and would not vote for one, and since Sanders has used that label to describe himself, you can be assured the republicans would take every opportunity to remind people of that.)

So, Sanders might get a bunch of college students to vote for him (well, at least the ones that can get off their couches), but he would have lost much of the minority vote (he had even less appeal to minorities than Clinton), and he would have lost much of he middle class (his policies included an increase in tax on the middle class). Plus, the whole "Yankees die" and "socialist" thing might lose him some support among the more patriotic Americans.

https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-r...p-b596674c1c93
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...not-vote-for-a
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:38 PM   #308
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,537
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The 2016 election was a single data point, so its not really indicative of what would happen in future elections. Furthermore, there were certain... issues that the Democrats had to deal with at the time, that had nothing to do with how "moderate" they were.

In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference

All of those are going to be things that negatively affect a candidate, regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum. Trying to suggest the loss in 2016 was due to the Democrat's "moderation" is to ignore much of what was going on at the time.

It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 12:48 PM   #309
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff
Of course there are thousands of politically connected people who work around the area the town hall took place. Not particularly surprising. And not unlikely that CNN sometimes tries hard to nudge a debate a certain direction using circumstances like this to their advantage, but the questions weren't particularly bad.

It would be great if CNN could introduce their questioners with more relevant background info. Politically connected people introduced as mothers, students, and concerned citizens is irresponsible at best, shady at worst.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 01:06 PM   #310
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters. So why run a centrist? Are you implying that the "moderates and centralists" would never vote for Bernie in a general election? Do you think they'd vote for Trump, instead?

Purity tests, indeed.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 02:21 PM   #311
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters. So why run a centrist?
Because even though a lot of people claim to like "free college" and "single-payer", its very easy to support such concepts when they are done in relative isolation, with little or no details given about how they will be implemented, and with little or no opposition presented.

So people like "free college"... would they still like it if they knew their taxes would go up to support it (keeping in mind that Sanders proposed increasing taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy)? They like "single payer health care"... will they be happy with they type of government control that would be required, and/or the waiting lists that might result? Would private insurance be completely outlawed?
Quote:
Are you implying that the "moderates and centralists" would never vote for Bernie in a general election? Do you think they'd vote for Trump, instead?
Some might, some might not. (Some might decide instead to sit out of the election, or pick a 3rd party candidate.)

Remember, many minority voters who had voted for Obama didn't vote at all in 2016, even though a vote for Clinton would have probably been best for them. So people don't often act in a way that is necessarily beneficial to themselves. (Not to mention the BernieBros who failed to support Clinton, even though she was clearly closer to Sanders in policy than Trump was.)

Lets say you're a moderate/independent voter who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past. You have no problem with things like gay marriage or minority rights, but you don't personally have any gay or minority friends, so Trump's bigotry won't resonate with you. For the most part you're happy with things as they are. So you see a choice between an ignorant con-artist on the right, and a self-labeled socialist who's going to increase your taxes in order to provide services you may not want.

And this is assuming that there aren't other reasons to vote against far-left candidates... as I pointed out, some people might like socialist policies in theory, but they don't like the "socialist" label and may vote against a politician just because he uses that label for himself. And then there are the other issues: Sander's history as a thief, his "Yankees Die" video, etc. So your choice is now between an ignorant con-artist on the right, and a self-labeled socialist who steals and wants Americans to die (before or after their taxes are raised is unknown.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 02:31 PM   #312
Shadowdweller
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 798
As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.
Shadowdweller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 02:45 PM   #313
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,634
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters.
I am just a little bit skepticla of the polls that claim this. Here's a gushing article about them that accidentally highlights the problem with taking them at face value:

Quote:
Seventy percent of Americans said they support a single-payer or Medicare for All health insurance system including 85 percent of registered Democrats and 52 percent of registered Republicans. Compare these numbers to 2014, when only 21 percent of Americans thought we should have a single-payer system.

The number of Americans who want to eliminate the private insurance industry and replace it with a single universal public program has more than tripled in just four years.
(Italics in original)

Now it seems to me that there are two explanations for the startling change in the matter of a few years. Either the American people did suddenly do an abrupt 180-degree turn on this issue or the questions they were asked changed. I know which seems more likely to me.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 02:52 PM   #314
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans. Heck, republican politicians were more likely to praise him than attack him. And that would have changed had he won the nomination.
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.
We've all seen these arguments here numerous times before. Many find them unconvincing and I have no desire to rehash them for the 37th time.

I guess we'll see how this plays out
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 02:53 PM   #315
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by Shadowdweller View Post
As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.
That's quite possible. He probably has the most name recognition of all the candidates (current and potential), and I'm sure the Democrats will be bending over backwards to give him every advantage, lest they give the appearance of favoritism.

He might even win the presidency. But not because "gee wiz... people are really fans of socialism" (and I think the election will be much tighter than BernieBros seem to think)... I think he stands a chance at winning because Trump has become so toxic to many people (even more than he was in 2016), a benefit Sanders wouldn't have had in the previous election when Trump was more of an unknown quantity. Heck, the Democrats could probably nominate a ham sandwich and it would probably get elected.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 03:02 PM   #316
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,669
Originally Posted by Shadowdweller View Post
As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.
If Sanders loses to Trump, does that mean that centrism AND far-left ideas are off the table for 2024?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 03:26 PM   #317
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Quote:
How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans.
Quote:
It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.
We've all seen these arguments here numerous times before. Many find them unconvincing and I have no desire to rehash them for the 37th time.
In that case would you tell the BernieBros who keep claiming "OMG Sanders was so popular he would have won in 2016" the same thing? Because as long as that claim is made, the problems with that claim need to be pointed out.

But hey, maybe you think "People love a good thief, and Americans really do deserve to die". Or maybe you think "Well, the republicans are honorable people and they'd never stoop so low as to use a person's history against them".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 03:55 PM   #318
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,212
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Because even though a lot of people claim to like "free college" and "single-payer", its very easy to support such concepts when they are done in relative isolation, with little or no details given about how they will be implemented, and with little or no opposition presented.
You're typing from Canada which has single payer. I had my bank account seized and had to sleep in a tent in winter because of medical bills. My mother died on my living room couch in November because she had no health care.

Why you want to deny health care to Americans is perplexing. Is it just sadism?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:24 PM   #319
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,440
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You're typing from Canada which has single payer. I had my bank account seized and had to sleep in a tent in winter because of medical bills. My mother died on my living room couch in November because she had no health care.

Why you want to deny health care to Americans is perplexing. Is it just sadism?
I can really see this going off topic...

Yes, the American system is broken. (Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but I recognize that there are still significant problems.)

But, there is actually a multitude of medical systems in the world, many of which give universal health care, and pretty much nobody runs theirs like Canada's. For example, Britain covers everyone with the government system, but also allows private insurance for those wanting better/faster service. Switzerland covers everyone with private insurance, (and provides subsidies for poorer people).

Canada's health system has flaws... its a true "single payer" with no user fees (at least for basic care... eye and dental aren't covered). It means no private insurance for those wanting specialized care. And while its nice to think "gosh darn, everyone is treated equally and nobody goes bankrupt", there are also also flaws.. waiting lists can be quite problematic, and we have problems with people finding personal doctors.) If someone were designing a health system from the ground up, I would strongly suggest not to follow Canada's model. I'd suggest following the path of Britain, Switzerland, Finland, or any one of a dozen other countries that offer universal health care without being "single payer"... Countries that also have relatively low costs, but also seem to avoid the problems the Canadian system has.

Whenever anyone talks about "single payer" health care in the U.S., you need to question what exactly they are suggesting... do they mean true "single payer", or do they simply mean some sort of universal coverage (allowing user fees and private insurance to exist). If they mean "single payer" (with the idea of following in the footsteps of Canada) I'd suggest they look elsewhere for a system to emulate.

You do have my sympathies. U.S. health care does need to be improved. But then, instead of having your property seized, would you truly be better off if you simply got stuck on a waiting list waiting for health care? It does happen... I have a cousin who injured his shoulder playing hockey and it took months to arrange an MRI (despite the fact that such things could be done in a week in the U.S. That's months of unnecessary pain.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 04:40 PM   #320
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,064
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
In that case would you tell the BernieBros who keep claiming "OMG Sanders was so popular he would have won in 2016" the same thing? Because as long as that claim is made, the problems with that claim need to be pointed out.
I think the number of people who actually qualify as "BernieBros" is pretty small but some like to use that term instead to refer to anyone who disliked Clinton or thought Sanders was a stronger candidate regardless of whether their reasons had merit.

In any case, while evidence can be presented for why Sanders would have won or Sanders would have lost, the answer is ultimately unknowable at this point unless you have an alternate reality machine.

What is still potentially knowable is the original claim which triggered this series of responses. That claim was:

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.
Considering the progressive shift in candidates and democratic platform I'm guessing a progressive candidate is going to get the nomination. Time will tell.

Quote:
But hey, maybe you think "People love a good thief, and Americans really do deserve to die". Or maybe you think "Well, the republicans are honorable people and they'd never stoop so low as to use a person's history against them".
I have no idea what you're talking about here. We've literally been over all of this before so there's no need to guess what I think.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=327943
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.