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.
Reply
Old 10th September 2019, 09:57 AM   #121
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
In other words, yes, you reject the 70% poll because you consider the the fact that Clinton got the most votes and thus won the popular vote better data. But just answering "yes" is too difficult, so we get this weird tap dance.
It's no tap dance since I gave you your answer. I wanted to avoid any shenanigans with the different wording.

Quote:
What is/are the point(s) of disagreement about the 70% poll?
Asked and answered.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 10:05 AM   #122
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've provided reasons to dismiss the poll.
LOL! No, you haven't. Oh, you think you have, but that's just where your naivety comes into play.

QED
Cabbage 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 10th September 2019, 10:11 AM   #123
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
LOL! No, you haven't.
Then what have we been discussing these last couple of days?

No, you know I stated those reasons. At the time you just disagreed with them. Now you've decided they're not reasons at all, because it's easier to "win" when you pretend the other person hasn't said anything.

You're simply unable to hold a conversation without losing your **** when you don't get your way.

Quote:
Oh, you think you have, but that's just where your naivety comes into play.
What part of "I'm the one who said things aren't as simple as you made them out to be" makes ME naive?

You're not making any sense anymore.

Quote:
QED
You keep using that word...
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 10:20 AM   #124
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We're still tangentially on topic. We're trying to determine whether anti-establishment candidates, or moderates, or extremes, are more likely to win, or not.
Bull ****.
Originally Posted by Belz...
Besides, as you can see the thing's winding down.
More bull ****.


I think everything that can be said about anti-establishment influence on Clinton v. Trump has been discussed to death already.

An important platform for progressives and indeed all of the Dem candidates is to emphasize going after Trump and what they'll do to change the "status quo". Flipping Trump is the bare minimum.
Venom is online now   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 10th September 2019, 10:45 AM   #125
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Then what have we been discussing these last couple of days?
It's hard to tell anymore due to your confusion.

Quote:
No, you know I stated those reasons. At the time you just disagreed with them. Now you've decided they're not reasons at all, because it's easier to "win" when you pretend the other person hasn't said anything.
I addressed your reason, showing how it doesn't actually contradict what you mistakenly thought it contradicted.

You refused to pay attention.

Quote:
You're simply unable to hold a conversation without losing your **** when you don't get your way.
I've patiently explained why you are wrong multiple times. You never pay attention. Tell me, be explicit: Why does Clinton winning more votes contradict the poll? The simple fact is it does not. I've explained that at least a dozen times to you. It's not merely my opinion, I specifically demonstrated precisely how you are wrong.

Is it any surprise one (me) gets frustrated with another (you) who repeatedly refuses to even listen?



Quote:
What part of "I'm the one who said things aren't as simple as you made them out to be" makes ME naive?
Because you still seem to think Hillary winning more votes contradicts the 70% poll. It does not. To think otherwise after I've repeatedly explained it to you is naive.

Quote:
You're not making any sense anymore.
It would be clearer to you if you listened to ALL that I say.



Quote:
You keep using that word...
Actually, it's an acronym meaning "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", which translates to "That which was to be demonstrated". It's typically used after some claim is demonstrated: For example, when I demonstrated you to be incorrect.
Cabbage 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 10th September 2019, 10:50 AM   #126
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I addressed your reason
Good, so now you admit that they existed, at least.

Quote:
showing how it doesn't actually contradict what you mistakenly thought it contradicted.
And I told you I didn't say it contradicted it. You're just not following.

Quote:
I've patiently explained why you are wrong multiple times.
That's amazing. I've done the same with you!

Quote:
Is it any surprise one (me) gets frustrated with another (you) who repeatedly refuses to even listen?
I've listened. I just don't AGREE WITH YOU. You think the two are one and the same.

Quote:
Actually, it's an acronym meaning "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"
I know what it means, hence my comment.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 11:28 AM   #127
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,341
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've listened. I just don't AGREE WITH YOU. You think the two are one and the same.
Because this is mildly annoying, I'm going to poke this a little.

Belz..., in this case, your reasoning is flat out wrong. For honesty's sake, you should be admitting that you made a mistake in your choice of arguments, even if you remain unconvinced enough about your discussion partners' positions to alter your core position.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 10th September 2019, 11:35 AM   #128
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Are Anti-Establishment Sentiments Strong in Present Day America?

I'm starting this thread to put an end to the perpetual derailment of the 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II thread.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Good, so now you admit that they existed, at least.
Oh, I'll freely admit they existed. I was merely pointing out that I proved they don't demonstrate what you naively thought they demonstrated.



Quote:
And I told you I didn't say it contradicted it. You're just not following.
Oh really, now? Then to what set of data are you actually referring here:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I rejected the poll bacause a much more reliable set of data contradicts it.


Quote:
That's amazing. I've done the same with you!
I haven't seen it.



Quote:
I've listened. I just don't AGREE WITH YOU. You think the two are one and the same.
I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I'm merely pointing out you simply have no evidence with which to support your opinion.



Quote:
I know what it means, hence my comment.



If anyone else wants to join in....Welcome! I totally understand if you'd prefer to skip this circus, however.
Cabbage 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 10th September 2019, 11:44 AM   #129
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,867
I do think it's strong enough to get someone over the hump in a close election, as you suggest.

It's probably not enough to go after Trump, an aberration.
Venom is online now   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 10th September 2019, 11:45 AM   #130
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
This poll is strong evidence that there are high levels of anger at the political establishment:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...spite-n1045916

Quote:
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they're angry at the political establishment
Quote:
The poll finds that 70 percent of Americans say they feel angry “because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington.” Forty-three percent say that statement describes them "very well."
Quote:
In 2015, 39 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats said a feeling of anger at the political establishment defined them “very well.” Now, it’s 29 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of Democrats — a 10-point swing for each party, in opposite directions.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 11:50 AM   #131
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,867
I think there is also a lot of clashing within the so-called anti-establishment electorate.
It may not translate into the votes we think of or hope for.
Venom is online now   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 10th September 2019, 11:53 AM   #132
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
I think anybody who wants to tear down"The Establishment" should be required to present a detailed plan as to what they want to replace it with.
Yes, I think blind 'Screw The Establisment" attitudes played a big art in getting u in the mess we are in. It's one of the more damaging of the legacies of the Sixties.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 11:59 AM   #133
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,675
To me, there are 2 man issues with the whole 'anti-establishment sentiment' arguments.

First problem is how do you determine whether a person is anti-establishment? Does a person just need to support an 'outsider' or are policies important? Is Bernie Sanders 'anti-Establishment'? After all, he wasn't a member of the Democratic party. But he doesn't want to "destroy" government; in fact, he wants to build on it/make it a bigger part of society. Now Trump has been extremely destructive to the government, but remember in the 2016 election, he wasn't talking about ending medicare or privatizing social security.

Secondly, a comparison is on order: Over the past decade, congress has had an average approval rating of less than 20%. Yet over 80% of congress critters get re-elected election after election. They complain "I don't like how congress works", but then they go back and re-elect the same people.

I suspect the same rules apply for people claiming to be 'anti-establishment'... they will make a lot of noise about how they want change, but when push comes to shove, they will end up voting for the guy with the best hair (or whatever criteria they were going to use before hand.)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/polit...ing/index.html
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   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 10th September 2019, 11:59 AM   #134
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think anybody who wants to tear down"The Establishment" should be required to present a detailed plan as to what they want to replace it with.
I want to replace the current democratic party establishment with people to the left of them.

For example, instead of a few huge donors, more small donors. Instead of people like Timothy Geithner and Robert Rubin directing economic policy, people like Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and Stephanie Kelton.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 12:05 PM   #135
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
To me, there are 2 man issues with the whole 'anti-establishment sentiment' arguments.

First problem is how do you determine whether a person is anti-establishment? Does a person just need to support an 'outsider' or are policies important?
I would say the core aspect that makes someone more pro-establishment vs anti-establishment (on the democratic side, at least) is policy positions (and actual dedication to the position, vs election time pandering, ala Kamala Harris' "support" for M4A, or Clinton2016 with the rejection of the TPP.)

Different people will, of course, have different ways of thinking about and defining pro vs anti establishment "criteria" in general.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 12:23 PM   #136
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Because this is mildly annoying, I'm going to poke this a little.

Belz..., in this case, your reasoning is flat out wrong. For honesty's sake, you should be admitting that you made a mistake in your choice of arguments, even if you remain unconvinced enough about your discussion partners' positions to alter your core position.
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong(*). Maybe you'll be more skilled at demonstrating this than Cabbage. Where do you think I'm wrong, specifically? (let's first see if you get my argument right, to begin with)



*: Your post seems to assume that I know that I'm wrong, but refuse to admit so. I assure you, I think I'm right. I think I've amply demonstrated that I can admit when I'm wrong in the past. Cabbage and I unfortunately were talking past one another and he never seemed to realise exactly where and in what way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 10th September 2019 at 02:11 PM.
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 10th September 2019, 12:28 PM   #137
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,140
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I would say the core aspect that makes someone more pro-establishment vs anti-establishment (on the democratic side, at least) is policy positions (and actual dedication to the position, vs election time pandering, ala Kamala Harris' "support" for M4A, or Clinton2016 with the rejection of the TPP.)

Different people will, of course, have different ways of thinking about and defining pro vs anti establishment "criteria" in general.
See, I think of it in terms of political career, and relation to the party leadership.
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 10th September 2019, 12:30 PM   #138
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,329
Quote:
Are Anti-Establishment Sentiments Strong in Present Day America?

Yes, but many of the people that hold them don’t realise that billionaire celebrities are part of the Establishment.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 10th September 2019, 12:33 PM   #139
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
To me, there are 2 man issues with the whole 'anti-establishment sentiment' arguments.

First problem is how do you determine whether a person is anti-establishment? Does a person just need to support an 'outsider' or are policies important? Is Bernie Sanders 'anti-Establishment'? After all, he wasn't a member of the Democratic party. But he doesn't want to "destroy" government; in fact, he wants to build on it/make it a bigger part of society. Now Trump has been extremely destructive to the government, but remember in the 2016 election, he wasn't talking about ending medicare or privatizing social security.

Secondly, a comparison is on order: Over the past decade, congress has had an average approval rating of less than 20%. Yet over 80% of congress critters get re-elected election after election. They complain "I don't like how congress works", but then they go back and re-elect the same people.

I suspect the same rules apply for people claiming to be 'anti-establishment'... they will make a lot of noise about how they want change, but when push comes to shove, they will end up voting for the guy with the best hair (or whatever criteria they were going to use before hand.)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/polit...ing/index.html
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
I think there have always been A-E sentiments. It's rare in my experience to find someone that doesn't complain about some aspect of the establishment govt. I do think it's at some relative max currently; I think A-E is stronger now than any other point in my life (~50 years).

There certainly are issues in determining A-E based purely on the candidate they support. Someone in the parent thread claimed President Trump is not actually A-E. I actually disagree with that; I think things like sabotaging the EPA and contradicting US intelligence absolutely make him A-E. On the other hand, his claim of being for the "Forgotten Man" is complete BS, as I expect everyone here realizes; with things like his tax cuts and his defunding of the CFPB, he's the most unapologetically corporate sleaze I've ever seen in the White House in my life.

Still, as I pointed out, voting is based on perception, not objectivity, and Trump the campaigner absolutely played on A-E sentiments. That doesn't make him A-E, but it absolutely convinces a lot of people that he is, indeed, A-E.

I consider Sanders and Warren to be A-E, but as you say, not in a destructive manner. More as candidates that are simply not in the pocket of corporations. Of course, it's always possible I'm a fool and that "Fight for the Little Man" attitude won't survive election even if they do win. And certainly if they do win and they sincerely do keep their promises, I don't see anyway they can deliver even a significant portion of their agenda. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Anyway, I don't think A-E needs to be thought of as anarchy or any sort of a tearing down of the establishment. To me, it fundamentally means (ideally) somehow getting rid of money as such an overwhelmingly powerful tool in politics.

Regarding high reelection rates in Congress: Of course, some of that's due to unopposed races, which in the past 9 years seems to account for anywhere 30 to 75 races each election, judging from the graph in this article:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ed-candidates/

There also seems to be a trend of "My congressman's OK but it's those others that have got to go", which is consistent with both high reelection rates as well as strong A-E sentiment.
Cabbage 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 10th September 2019, 12:45 PM   #140
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
See, I think of it in terms of political career, and relation to the party leadership.

I can mostly see that.

Not "political career" so much, if by that you just mean "length of political career." Ron Paul was legit anti-establishment in my view, even though he was in congress a long time.

It's hard to pin down what "party leadership" actually is now, too, with both the Dems and the Repubs.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 12:47 PM   #141
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I would say the core aspect that makes someone more pro-establishment vs anti-establishment (on the democratic side, at least) is policy positions (and actual dedication to the position, vs election time pandering, ala Kamala Harris' "support" for M4A, or Clinton2016 with the rejection of the TPP.)

Different people will, of course, have different ways of thinking about and defining pro vs anti establishment "criteria" in general.
I have a bone to pick with progressives who imply that for a candidate to call herself progressive, she needs to support the 2019 version of Medicare For All or reject the TPP or embrace the most progressive (or regressive, take your pick) position on student loans. It's obvious where they are setting the bar and I don't feel it's at all necessary to do that.

Medicare for All is the progressive buzzword now. If you're not for it, you're for the insurance companies (and by extension, the establishment) is the annoying talking point I'm hearing from some.
Venom is online now   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 10th September 2019, 12:54 PM   #142
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Regarding high reelection rates in Congress: Of course, some of that's due to unopposed races, which in the past 9 years seems to account for anywhere 30 to 75 races each election, judging from the graph in this article:.

There also seems to be a trend of "My congressman's OK but it's those others that have got to go", which is consistent with both high reelection rates as well as strong A-E sentiment.
I'd say 90% (or more?) of the otherwise inexplicable re-election rate is due to money in politics, too.

Money is the key to name recognition, which is key to winning initially, and after becoming an incumbent, the donor class "contributes" to further re-election in exchange for "access," if not outright favors.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 01:00 PM   #143
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I have a bone to pick with progressives who imply that for a candidate to call herself progressive, she needs to support the 2019 version of Medicare For All or reject the TPP or embrace the most progressive (or regressive, take your pick) position on student loans. It's obvious where they are setting the bar and I don't feel it's at all necessary to do that.

Medicare for All is the progressive buzzword now. If you're not for it, you're for the insurance companies (and by extension, the establishment) is the annoying talking point I'm hearing from some.
M4A is basically a catchphrase for true, actual UHC (as opposed to "almost UHC", or "a bit closer to UHC.")

If you don't believe every single American deserves healthcare and have a plan to make that happen, I'm not sure how progressive of a candidate you are.
__________________
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 10th September 2019, 01:01 PM   #144
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,707
I see it as people are finally waking up to the unpleasant reality that "the American Dream" isn't realistic for most of us. And as a result a lot of them are angry, and blaming "the establishment".
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   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 10th September 2019, 01:13 PM   #145
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
M4A is basically a catchphrase for true, actual UHC (as opposed to "almost UHC", or "a bit closer to UHC.")

If you don't believe every single American deserves healthcare and have a plan to make that happen, I'm not sure how progressive of a candidate you are.
It should be explicitly made clear that M4A 2.0, as I call it, is above and beyond what we would call progressive after our experience with half measures like the ACA. It's more ambitious than all other industrialized nations UHC systems.

Seems to me candidates are heavily pressured to go with M4A 2.0 and when they don't or they slip a bit they're straw manned as not for single payer or any UHC.
Venom is online now   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 10th September 2019, 01:26 PM   #146
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Seems to me candidates are heavily pressured to go with M4A 2.0 and when they don't or they slip a bit they're straw manned as not for single payer or any UHC.
None of them have proposed an alternative that's actually any version of UHC, though.

eta:

Biden's plan is just to tweak Obamacare a little.

Mayor Pete's plan is to allow people (those who can afford it) to buy into medicare.

Kamala's plan is some sort of "private Medicare" thing which even she doesn't seem to understand.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kellyb; 10th September 2019 at 01:29 PM.
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 10th September 2019, 09:37 PM   #147
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,341
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong(*). Maybe you'll be more skilled at demonstrating this than Cabbage. Where do you think I'm wrong, specifically? (let's first see if you get my argument right, to begin with)
First, then - position check. To start with, one of your main underlying positions is that a vote for Trump is not necessarily an anti-establishment vote, is it not? And that therefore, votes for Trump are not a particularly good indicator of anti-establishment sentiment?


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
*: Your post seems to assume that I know that I'm wrong, but refuse to admit so. I assure you, I think I'm right.
Your reading of it is... actually almost inverse to what the words actually say, then. You think that your position is right, yes, obviously.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 11th September 2019, 02:23 AM   #148
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,462
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
First, then - position check. To start with, one of your main underlying positions is that a vote for Trump is not necessarily an anti-establishment vote, is it not? And that therefore, votes for Trump are not a particularly good indicator of anti-establishment sentiment?
Right.

The fundamental error Cabbage seemed to make, repeatedly and despite my best efforts to tell him, is that "X is not good evidence for A for reasons B" is not the same thing as "~A is true".

I think a vote for Trump can be a vote for the GOP, a vote for lower taxes, a vote for made-in-USA, a vote against immigration, a vote for racism, a vote against the establishment, a vote to clean up the establishment, a vote against Killary, etc. Inversely a vote for Clinton could also be for a number of reasons. I think it's simplistic to say "look at 2016!" as some sort of good indicator of how anti-establishment, or pro-, or extreme or moderate, the electorate is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 11th September 2019 at 02:24 AM.
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 11th September 2019, 04:42 AM   #149
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Right.

The fundamental error Cabbage seemed to make, repeatedly and despite my best efforts to tell him, is that "X is not good evidence for A for reasons B" is not the same thing as "~A is true".
...and yet you use the 2016 election as evidence that the 70% poll is wrong.

Quote:
I think a vote for Trump can be a vote for the GOP, a vote for lower taxes, a vote for made-in-USA, a vote against immigration, a vote for racism, a vote against the establishment, a vote to clean up the establishment, a vote against Killary, etc. Inversely a vote for Clinton could also be for a number of reasons. I think it's simplistic to say "look at 2016!" as some sort of good indicator of how anti-establishment, or pro-, or extreme or moderate, the electorate is.
I agree. That's why I also incorporated the 70% poll, Trump winning the nomination, Sanders far outperforming expectations against Clinton, the 2010 Tea Party Wave, and the 2018 Blue Wave into my evidence.

Nice straw man, however.

Last edited by Cabbage; 11th September 2019 at 04:47 AM.
Cabbage 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 11th September 2019, 05:42 AM   #150
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The fundamental error Cabbage seemed to make, repeatedly and despite my best efforts to tell him, is that "X is not good evidence for A for reasons B" is not the same thing as "~A is true".
Man, you don't even know your own argument. I've been specifically responding to these posts, which are your own:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Observation trumps theory. Polls are are a sample of opinions given largely out of context. Votes are actual actions taken based on opinions. If there's a discrepancy between the polls and the vote, I can't believe you'd suggest we ignore reality and go with the poll instead.

and

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I rejected the poll bacause a much more reliable set of data contradicts it.

...in both of which you are implying that the 2016 election contradicts the 70% poll. That is what I've been responding to.

If you didn't want that as part of your argument you should never have presented it as part of your argument. It's like you're straw manning your own argument.

Cabbage 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 11th September 2019, 06:10 AM   #151
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,878
"Mainstream vs Extremist" is a horrible way to look at. Our political discourse has got to move beyond treating the political spectrum as if it's some actual real natural law that exists in reality like matter and anti-matter or the negative and positives sides of magnet.

Political parties are just collectives built around usually but not always commonly shared political opinions, goals, and values. Democrats are pro-choice, stronger on gun control, more focused on environmental issue, pro-gay marriage, limited religion in government, etc while Republican are pro-life, stronger on gun owners rights, more focused on business freedom, more traditional family, etc just because it's common for those opinions to be held by the same people and forming groups is useful, not because it is some immutable law of the universe that if you are pro-gun you have to be anti-gay marriage or whatever.

Here's the problem. There are people out there who don't agree with everything either of the major parties says. This didn't use to be a problem but now everything is political so every disagreement from the fundamental nature of our very society and government to stuffing or potatoes belongs to one of the sides.

38% of women don't want abortions to be legal. Who do they vote for? The pro-abortion rights Democrats or the misogynistic Republicans? I want clean air and water, I don't want anyone telling me how big of a soda I can buy. Who do I vote for?

Again none of this is about whether or not you agree with the opinions. But the more requirements you put on who gets to be in your club, the smaller your club is going to be.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 11th September 2019 at 06:21 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 11th September 2019, 06:18 AM   #152
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,012
I assume y'all realize this can't be scientifically determined, and that we're solidly in the realm of opinion based on tea leaves.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   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 11th September 2019, 08:02 AM   #153
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I assume y'all realize this can't be scientifically determined, and that we're solidly in the realm of opinion based on tea leaves.
I disagree. Rather strongly, in fact. It's certainly possible to have evidence that a sizable population has this or that trend. No, it doesn't prove this or that, but then again, that doesn't happen in hard science, either. That sort of proof is pretty much unique to mathematics.
Cabbage 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 11th September 2019, 08:03 AM   #154
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,878
If "Voter data" isn't a legit thing I'd dearly love to know what the ever loving hell like 90% of the talking heads on cable news get paid to talk about then.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 11th September 2019, 08:08 AM   #155
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,140
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If "Voter data" isn't a legit thing I'd dearly love to know what the ever loving hell like 90% of the talking heads on cable news get paid to talk about then.
I'm pretty sure Sturgeon's Law answers this.
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 11th September 2019, 10:20 AM   #156
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,592
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If the mods move the past discussion there, yes. Otherwise, no. I've done what I can to talk sense to Cabbage. With some luck the conversation with Aridas will be more productive here.
The "Democratic Candidates tracker" thread is for the discussion we're having here.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

I think a vote for Trump can be a vote for the GOP, a vote for lower taxes, a vote for made-in-USA, a vote against immigration, a vote for racism, a vote against the establishment, a vote to clean up the establishment, a vote against Killary, etc. Inversely a vote for Clinton could also be for a number of reasons. I think it's simplistic to say "look at 2016!" as some sort of good indicator of how anti-establishment, or pro-, or extreme or moderate, the electorate is.
Then how can you reject the 70% poll on the basis that the 2016 election (that Clinton got more votes [popular vote votes] than Trump) is a better data set?
__________________
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 11th September 2019, 10:58 AM   #157
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,731
No, people in the US are not anti-establishment. It's anti-THEM-establishment. US-establishment is just fine.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey 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 11th September 2019, 03:12 PM   #158
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
Hey, being against the Establishment makes you sound edgy and cool, even if you can really explain exactly what the establishment is.
__________________
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 11th September 2019, 10:04 PM   #159
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,341
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think a vote for Trump can be a vote for the GOP, a vote for lower taxes, a vote for made-in-USA, a vote against immigration, a vote for racism, a vote against the establishment, a vote to clean up the establishment, a vote against Killary, etc. Inversely a vote for Clinton could also be for a number of reasons. I think it's simplistic to say "look at 2016!" as some sort of good indicator of how anti-establishment, or pro-, or extreme or moderate, the electorate is.
True enough for the general election. With that said, the 2016 GOP primaries were a better figurative barometer when it came to that measure. Some of the main attraction for Trump and Cruz, the two candidates that pretty much ended up dominating the field in the final states won counts, was the "burn it down" sentiments that their supporters were best known for. I will certainly agree that a vote for Trump (or Cruz) in the primaries was not necessarily a vote against the establishment, however, I do think that it was an undeniably major factor that was in play, so it wouldn't quite be correct to deny the notable relationship in play.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 11th September 2019 at 10:06 PM.
Aridas 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 11th September 2019, 11:12 PM   #160
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,069
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I see it as people are finally waking up to the unpleasant reality that "the American Dream" isn't realistic for most of us. And as a result a lot of them are angry, and blaming "the establishment".
The American Dream is out there and available to all who are willing to work for it. Unfortunately, most of the people willing to attain it are in China. With this economy if you're not living the "Dream", you have nobody but yourself to blame.

Chris B.
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY 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 07:16 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.