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 23rd February 2019, 01:58 AM   #241
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
TBH many progressives shot themselves in the foot trying to do that to Hillary all the time.

When Tulsi Gabbard's even more fervent opposition to LGBT rights was revealed, "Oh she's antiwar though and Killary would get us into a war with Russha!"

It's sometimes best to avoid the relatively petty hypocrisy/flip flopping wars; 1990s, 2000s era talking points.
Yeah, during the primaries, I kinda begged fellow progressives to just leave that one alone. Using weak, bad arguments when perfectly strong and valid ones are abundant is silly.
__________________
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 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 23rd February 2019, 07:43 AM   #242
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Monetary "assets" are mostly digital now. It's almost definitely literally impossible for a bank to run out of "money".

eta: during the "secret" bailouts, the federal reserve gave the banks $16 TRILLION, just by typing some numbers into a computer.
Yeah, but it looks like Sanders' bank breakup bill (if passed) would preclude this possibility for the oversized banks.

Quote:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any ‘‘Too Big to Exist Institution’’ may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 23rd February 2019, 12:41 PM   #243
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Apologies...

It's been a while since I've regularly spent much time here, and I really didn't expect this post to grab so much attention. I have not abandoned the thread I started but it may take me a bit to get caught up. I'll try not to make too many up thread flash-back posts, but some of you are so good at inspiring consideration and reply that I'm sure I will not be able to completely avoid the temptations!

I hope you are all doing well and I'm looking forward to reviewing your replies thus far!


TS
__________________
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 23rd February 2019, 01:02 PM   #244
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Yeah, but it looks like Sanders' bank breakup bill (if passed) would preclude this possibility for the oversized banks.
If they're broken up and insured, there would never a gain be a need to bail them out. The problem of "contagion" is eliminated. When they know they can just be bailed out whenever they over-lend in the pursuit of short-term profits, they have no incentive to behave responsibly.
__________________
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 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 23rd February 2019, 01:07 PM   #245
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,108
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
...

It's sometimes best to avoid the relatively petty hypocrisy/flip flopping wars; 1990s, 2000s era talking points.
That whole flip-flopping contrived criticism was as usual, well managed by the GOP and poorly responded to by the Democrats.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 23rd February 2019, 04:33 PM   #246
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
What does this mean for the Bernie Bros who went hard core Trumpster?
Prediction: Double down on Trump and pretend they never supported Bernie.
Not sure there was ever much of an actual "Bernie Bro" group to begin with (beyond Clintonista nightmares and dismissive/distractionary misandristic framing). There probably were a few "false flag" misogynists who donned the facade of Sanders supporters to give vent to their own misogyny and in some cases to provoke an outsized over-reaction back against the facade they wore, in an apparently somewhat successful attempt to incite more division and disruption in the Democratic electorate. There may even be a foreign state element to this, but most of the examples I've seen to such appear to be from more typical internet political trolls than representative of any dedicated or significant group or organization within the larger faction of Sander's supporters.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Simple solution to the age thing: quickly pick a younger VP who's as much like him as possible. Whoever that younger person is will then be in a position to be treated as Bernie's post-mortem representative.

I like Tulsi Gabbard, am learning to appreciate Pete Buttigieg as I read more about him. I think there's a big role for Warren (more like Head of SEC, or AG, potentially as a USSC Justice nominee), that's about as far rightward as my tastes allow for enthusiastic support.

Originally Posted by Donal View Post
You're saying a primary potentially featuring up to 20 candidates will cause a split if Sanders joins? Really?

What happened to all those "accept whoever gets nominated" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" calls that were going around? Why is it only a certain sector needs to make compromises?
Sssh,...these are not the droids you are looking for,...move along...


Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
-Plus, he doesn't play well with others.

Caucused with Democrats throughout his political career, active in Democratic party fund-raising activities throughout his political career, campaigned with and for every Democratic Party Candidate for President (and several congressional candidates) throughout his political career, only ones I see that he doesn't "play nice" with are self-declared NAZIs and autocratic plutocrats. I know some people think that there are always some nice people on all sides, but personally, I tend to agree with him regarding NAZIs and autocratic plutocrats, forgive my biases.

He's not a democrat,

Actually he is more of a democrat than most Democratic politicos of the last several decades. To many of his supporters and voters (both in and outside the Democratic party) Sanders being an Independent, not being tied up in the Party politics and corruption, is a big feature, not a bug to be "repaired." I don't see you turning down people willing to vote for Democratic general election candidates because they don't want to register as Democratic Party members. Senator Sanders' State Democratic Party has endorsed him as their candidate to become the national Democratic Party Candidate for President in 2020.

and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)

No more so than Hillary in 2008 (or most other serious primary challengers in both parties throughout the last several decades).
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
People keep saying this but Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in '16 at a higher percentage than Clinton supporters for Obama in '08.
WAPO - "Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?"


~12% Sanders supporters voted Trump
~24% Clinton supporters voted for McCain

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
...There were a lot of reasons Clinton lost... Its hard to pin it to any one factor, but anything that harmed her campaign (even if it wasn't a "death blow" by itself) would have contributed to her loss.
...So, it was her turn and reality rebelled?!

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I hope it'll be different this time. There are a lot of candidates, many of which hold more progressive views. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, hopefully it will be someone more people will feel they can vote for than they could with Hillary.

AMEN,

however, there were other options for the last primary, but most had already been scuttled or sold on the idea that it was (and according to some, had been her turn since 2006-2008, a decade(s) long legacy of entitlement unfulfilled is tough to shake off, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I like that Bernie is in the primary. Last time he ran a lot of his ideas were considered too fringe and not mainstream enough. Those ideas have become more mainstream and he should be there as an anchor to prevent any slide back to the middle.
As many have noticed, for most of those whose progressivism seems to be more framing, than substance, the sliding started within weeks of announcing their candidacy.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Much much better live from Stop Making Sense.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Nice!

Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Strange how those "you'll split the party" arguments never apply to centrists and third way Democrats.
Also Nice!

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I'm not saying you're right or wrong but, out of curiosity, what's your source on that?
Sanders Numbers:
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/datase...910/DVN/GDF6Z0 (12%)
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publ...2016-elections (12%)
https://www.rand.org/research/data/a...el-survey.html (6%)

Hillary Numbers:
https://isps.yale.edu/research/data/d130 (24%)
https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/file...tompsonPOQ.pdf (25%)

Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
But also John McCain was not Donald Trump.
True, McCain was a more known quantity, though even he went far further to the right than he ever seemed capable of before after he lost. Trump was largely an unknown and seen as a disruptor, ultimately, despite all the smoke and noise, that is what he has been. Fortunately, aside from shaking the already crumbling architecture of our international treaties and relationships, most all of what he has done with the stroke of a pen, can be undone with the stroke of a pen. His impact on the GOP will be generational, much as is Sanders impact on the DNC, with popular preferences showing the winners and losers.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/p...filiation.aspx

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?
Republican - 25%
Independent - 39%
Democratic - 34%

okay that's it with my review and response, only made it through a couple pages and I'm exhausted! I'll skim through the rest and then just take up wherever we are currently...
__________________
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 23rd February 2019, 04:57 PM   #247
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are we counting the 3/5ths of persons in there?
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?
__________________
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 23rd February 2019, 09:22 PM   #248
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Bullcrap. Hillary Clinton's opinions blow with the wind. That is one of her biggest problems. Go back some years and see how she really feels about corporations, and any other hot topic of the day like gay marriage, the border.

Hillary Clinton, Progressive?!?!

Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

Sacred! Sounds like a Republican.
Woah! Did we actually agree on something? Pass me my smelling salts.
__________________
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 24th February 2019, 07:18 AM   #249
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,587
On subjects such as gay marriage I certainly would have wished Clinton had been more progressive sooner, and thought better about the meaning of what she said, etc. etc., but to say a person's opinions blow with the wind is to imply not that they change, but that they change back again. Is there evidence of that?

I suspect that some people who accuse others of waffling are those who prefer a candidate whose cognitive dissonance is so firm that he never learns anything.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto 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 24th February 2019, 09:05 AM   #250
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
If they're broken up and insured, there would never a gain be a need to bail them out. The problem of contagion is eliminated. When they know they can just be bailed out whenever they over-lend in the pursuit of short-term profits, they have no incentive to behave responsibly.
The problem of contagion would be eliminated mitigated after the breakup, but depositor flight would happen (if at all) during the breakup itself. Why would someone continue to do business with a big bank if they cannot predict which bits of that bank will inherit which of their accounts?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th February 2019 at 09:09 AM.
d4m10n 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 24th February 2019, 01:09 PM   #251
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The problem of contagion would be eliminated mitigated after the breakup, but depositor flight would happen (if at all) during the breakup itself. Why would someone continue to do business with a big bank if they cannot predict which bits of that bank will inherit which of their accounts?
They would know which part of the banks their deposits are in. It would just separate the commercial banking (your checking account) from the investment banking (investment "gambling").

We've done it before:
https://www.federalreservehistory.or...s_steagall_act

They didn't merge back together till the late 90's. Also see this: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...e-risk-takers/
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 01:14 PM   #252
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's all you got?

Not even close but this isn't a Clinton thread. If you think Hillary is progressive hey, fine with me. Carry on.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 24th February 2019, 01:26 PM   #253
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It would just separate the commercial banking (your checking account) from the investment banking (investment "gambling").
That approach would work for a few of the smallest of the largest banks, those just over the threshold set by Sanders' proposed law. For the banks which are several times larger than the legal threshold, that approach would not work.

Here is the bill itself:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...eg?inline=file
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 24th February 2019, 01:27 PM   #254
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
That approach would work for a few of the smallest of the largest banks, those just over the threshold set by Sanders' proposed law. For the banks which are several times larger than the legal threshold, that approach would not work.

Here is the bill itself:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...eg?inline=file
Why would it not work?
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 01:34 PM   #255
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Why would it not work?
When you split off the investment banking from the commercial banking, at best you would end up cutting the bank's size in half.

Here are some of the largest banks in the U.S. as of a few years back:


The really large banks would have to split into various bits.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 24th February 2019, 01:41 PM   #256
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
When you split off the investment banking from the commercial banking, at best you would end up cutting the bank's size in half.

Here are some of the largest banks in the U.S. as of a few years back:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...U.S._Banks.png

The really large banks would have to split into various bits.
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.

Sanders' bill is endorsed by this guy, by the way:

Quote:
“The new Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist proposed legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders is short and to the point. The largest banks and other highly leveraged financial institutions are simply too big – and pose a real danger to our continued economic recovery. Make them break up into smaller pieces, bringing more competition, better service and lower risks for the American economy,” said Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and current professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 02:26 PM   #257
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.
Which part of the bill requires that commercial banks be completely separated from mortgage lenders or market speculators? So far as I can tell, it merely requires that those activities be separated in terms of using insured deposits to fund speculation (an excellent idea, IMO).

Which part of the bill would prevent mid-tier banks which happen to fall under the size cap from becoming massively interconnected to other SIFIs in basically the same way Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros did?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th February 2019 at 02:28 PM.
d4m10n 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 24th February 2019, 02:57 PM   #258
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Which part of the bill requires that commercial banks be completely separated from mortgage lenders or market speculators? So far as I can tell, it merely requires that those activities be separated in terms of using insured deposits to fund speculation (an excellent idea, IMO).

Which part of the bill would prevent mid-tier banks which happen to fall under the size cap from becoming massively interconnected to other SIFIs in basically the same way Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros did?
Probably this part:

Quote:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any ‘‘Too Big to Exist Institution’’ that is an insured depository institution,
15 or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund
17 (A) any activity relating to hedging that is
18 not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
20 (B) any creation or use of derivatives for
21 speculative purposes
;
22 (C) any activity related to the dealing of
23 derivatives
;
any creation of, or lending against, new or existing forms of structured or structured derivatives products, including
2 collateralized debt obligations, collateralized
3 loan obligations
, and synthetic derivatives of
4 collateralized debt obligations
and collateralized
5 loan obligations
; or
6 (E) any other form of speculative activity
7 that regulators specify
__________________
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; 24th February 2019 at 03:01 PM.
kellyb 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 24th February 2019, 03:14 PM   #259
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Bullcrap. Hillary Clinton's opinions blow with the wind. That is one of her biggest problems. Go back some years and see how she really feels about corporations, and any other hot topic of the day like gay marriage, the border.

Hillary Clinton, Progressive?!?!

Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”
Yes, she changed her opinion. She did so YEARS ago, before she entered the 2016 primaries.

The idea that a politician cannot ever change their policies or beliefs without them being suspect seems like a rather bizarre purity test. Can you honestly say that Sanders has been consistent with every belief that he's had?

Back when Bush was president, Sanders was asked whether Vermont should legalize same sex marriage. His response? "Not right now". Doesn't sound very progressive, does it. So Sanders hasn't actually been a vocal advocate for same sex marriage all the time either.

In fact, while he did vote against the Defense of Marriage act, his primary concern was not protection of gay rights, it was because he felt it interferred with state's rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ge-too-n454081
Quote:
Sacred! Sounds like a Republican.
No, if she were a republican she would still probably be fighting against gay rights.
__________________
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 24th February 2019, 03:22 PM   #260
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.
You know, up here in Canada, in the great white north, our economy is dominated by 5 really big banks. If any of them failed, it would wipe out our economy.

Yet there is no call to 'break up' the banks (even though we currently have a left-of-center political party in charge). I don't even think our far-left NDP party wants to break up the banks. Why not?

Because our country's leaders have decided to make sure that the banks are well regulated. (They've taken the position that decent regulation is preferable to trying to break up banks to somehow make it so a failure in one won't crash the system.) Its a system that seems to have worked pretty well for us.

The U.S. doesn't necessarily need to break up the banks (whether that can be done easily or not.) Simply making sure that there is proper regulation and oversight would likely be enough.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 24th February 2019 at 03:40 PM.
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 24th February 2019, 03:39 PM   #261
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
~12% Sanders supporters voted Trump
~24% Clinton supporters voted for McCain
Yes, it may be true... many Clinton supporters switched to McCain. (Probably even more than Sanders voters switched to Trump. Although technically you should also count in non-voters and people that switched to 3rd party voters too.)

But that doesn't necessarily negate the claim that Sanders to Trump supporters contributed to Hillary's loss (and all of the political problems we have had since then.)

It should also be pointed out that there is a world of difference between the Obama/McCain election and the Clinton/Trump election. Obama once made a speech where he said: "I think I was right and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job." A voter could (in theory) switch from Clinton to McCain and get a president who would likely be competent and a decent person. On the other hand, Trump can't do the job, and he is not a decent person. So any BernieBros deciding not to support Clinton have a lot more ton answer for.
Quote:
Quote:
...There were a lot of reasons Clinton lost... Its hard to pin it to any one factor, but anything that harmed her campaign (even if it wasn't a "death blow" by itself) would have contributed to her loss.
...So, it was her turn and reality rebelled?!
Uhh... no. Where did I suggest it was "her turn"?

She was a competent politician. She had a decent set of ideas. She probably would have been a decent president. And she lost. Partly from Russian interference, partly from Republican dirty tricks, partly from her own mistakes, and yes, partly from "BernieBros" more interested in sitting in the corner and pouting because "their guy" lost than actually voting to make the country better.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 24th February 2019 at 03:41 PM.
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 24th February 2019, 03:57 PM   #262
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
You know, up here in Canada, in the great white north, our economy is dominated by 5 really big banks. If any of them failed, it would wipe out our economy.

Yet there is no call to 'break up' the banks (even though we currently have a left-of-center political party in charge). I don't even think our far-left NDP party wants to break up the banks. Why not?

Because our country's leaders have decided to make sure that the banks are well regulated. (They've taken the position that decent regulation is preferable to trying to break up banks to somehow make it so a failure in one won't crash the system.) Its a system that seems to have worked pretty well for us.

The U.S. doesn't necessarily need to break up the banks (whether that can be done easily or not.) Simply making sure that there is proper regulation and oversight would likely be enough.
Looks like you guys have a whole different history of banking regulation, so what works there might not work here:

https://www.nber.org/digest/dec11/w17312.html

Quote:
One important factor, the authors argue, is that from the outset Canada's federal government had the authority to charter and regulate banks while the U.S. Constitution did not specifically reserve that power for the federal government. That led to constitutional disputes, an on-again-off-again national bank, and a dual system of federal- and state-chartered banks that were smaller, geographically confined, and thus more exposed to local economic conditions. The inherent weakness of the banks led to the development of stock and other securities markets that were far more robust than Canada's and to the rise of other intermediaries -- the so-called shadow banking system -- that were overseen by a patchwork of regulators.

Financial crises, particularly the Great Depression, spurred reforms to strengthen regulation. In the 1930s, the government created federal deposit insurance, the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate securities markets, and stricter bank rules encompassed in the Glass-Steagall Act, which among other things separated commercial from investment banking.

For more than a century, the Canadian system has proven itself far more stable than its U.S. counterpart, the authors conclude. "[b]ut there is a caveat to keep in mind: greater stability may have come at a cost. A more concentrated and regulated financial system may have been slower to innovate, may have been slower to invest in emerging sectors, and may have provided services at monopoly prices."
Personally, I'd be fine with just emulating the Canadian system of bank regulation, if possible.
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 04:02 PM   #263
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So any BernieBros deciding not to support Clinton have a lot more ton answer for.
The only people I know of who voted for Sanders and then didn't vote for Clinton would never have voted for Clinton even if Sanders had never run.

It's funny, because over on the actual "far left", they call Sanders a "sheepdog" for bringing so many people back into the democratic party (right wing compared to them) fold.
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 05:59 PM   #264
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Quote:
So any BernieBros deciding not to support Clinton have a lot more ton answer for.
The only people I know of who voted for Sanders and then didn't vote for Clinton would never have voted for Clinton even if Sanders had never run.
Which doesn't really change my point.

Clinton was a left-of-center candidate (especially compared to the republican party). Whether they would have voted for her or not if Sanders did not run does not absolve them of contributing to Trump's victory.

They wanted someone "on the far left", they didn't get it. They could have voted for someone who was moderately left. Instead they sat out and pouted. They got a right wing racist con-artist instead. They could have at least attempted to stop him, but they didn't.

Enjoy your abortion rights, gay rights, and all the other things Clinton might have protected while they last. The fact that you may lose them is (in part) thanks to the BernieBros, regardless of what they would have done if Sanders hadn't run.
__________________
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 24th February 2019, 06:42 PM   #265
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Which doesn't really change my point.

Clinton was a left-of-center candidate (especially compared to the republican party). Whether they would have voted for her or not if Sanders did not run does not absolve them of contributing to Trump's victory.
I don't think they want or need your or anyone else's absolution. The democratic party acts like it's just "owed" everyone's votes instead of needing to earn them. No party or candidate is just owed everyone's votes. The quicker the democrats figure that out again, the quicker they might get back to a winning streak like they enjoyed from FDR till LBJ.
__________________
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 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 24th February 2019, 08:05 PM   #266
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,179
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I don't think they want or need your or anyone else's absolution. The democratic party acts like it's just "owed" everyone's votes instead of needing to earn them. No party or candidate is just owed everyone's votes.
While you 'progressives' keep telling yourselves that, republicans continue to vote for whoever is put in front of them - no matter how much they may dislike the candidate - because they know that winning is everything. Most republicans agreed that Trump was the worst nominee, but once selected they supported him 100% - because the alternative (staying home and letting a Democrat win) was worse.

But then 'progressives' don't really wan to win anyway, because if they did they would then have to try to put their policies into practice - and fail. Far better to let Republicans win, then you can safely claim to have all the answers without having to prove it.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 24th February 2019, 09:23 PM   #267
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
While you 'progressives' keep telling yourselves that, republicans continue to vote for whoever is put in front of them - no matter how much they may dislike the candidate - because they know that winning is everything. Most republicans agreed that Trump was the worst nominee, but once selected they supported him 100% - because the alternative (staying home and letting a Democrat win) was worse.
Actually, there were far more conservatives who voted for Johnson than progressives who voted Green or who wrote in some leftwinger, and there were a lot more conservatives who just didn't vote at all.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...election-2016/
Quote:
According to the United States Election Project, nearly half of eligible voters (46.9 percent of approximately 231,556,622 people) did not vote in the 2016 election. And while not the lowest voter turnout in history (that honor goes to the 1996 election between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, with 49 percent of eligible Americans abstaining from voting), the numbers are much lower than they were in both 2012 and 2008, particularly among Democrats.

While it might be easy to assume that these numbers reflect a lack of passion from the Democratic party this year, Republicans actually saw a lower voter turnout compared to the 2012 election, as well — albeit much less dramatically.
These folks y'all are so angry with for not voting for Clinton often lean somewhat independent more than they lean "Democratic Party Loyalist". The party loyalist crowd has a major "out of touch and unaware of it" problem going on with this stuff...too out of touch to be able to begin to guess how far out of touch 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.

Last edited by kellyb; 24th February 2019 at 09:25 PM.
kellyb 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 25th February 2019, 10:29 AM   #268
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Quote:
Which doesn't really change my point.

Clinton was a left-of-center candidate (especially compared to the republican party). Whether they would have voted for her or not if Sanders did not run does not absolve them of contributing to Trump's victory.
I don't think they want or need your or anyone else's absolution.
Whether they want absolution is irrelevant. They (meaning Sanders supporters who did not switch to Clinton) are partly responsible for Trump's victory. They should recognize that fact however, instead of trying to play the blame game.

(Of course, it does mean that such BernieBros can never claim that they support gay rights, or abortion rights, or any of the other things Clinton would have defended, since obviously those things weren't important enough for them to give up their little temper tantrum for.)
Quote:
The democratic party acts like it's just "owed" everyone's votes instead of needing to earn them. No party or candidate is just owed everyone's votes.
Seriously, what exaclty does "owed votes" actually mean? Are you expecting candidates to personally visit voters? Offer foot rubs?

Politicians and political parties typically do the same thing... they offer a set of policies and promises that they think best aligns with both their own beliefs and that will be popular enough to get them elected.

Is the claim that the democrats thought they were "owed" votes some sort of BernieBro code for "You must give us everything that we want, or we will go off in the corner and sulk"?

Sanders couldn't even gather enough votes in the primaries to win the nomination. Does that mean he thought he was 'owed' democratic votes in the primaries that he didn't get? What it does mean is that millions of democratic voters thought "We prefer the policies that were offered by Clinton".
Quote:
The quicker the democrats figure that out again, the quicker they might get back to a winning streak like they enjoyed from FDR till LBJ.
Ummm, "winning streak"?

What I THINK you're suggesting is that somehow "the democrats were more left-wing back then and had more success". But, there are several problems with your claim:

1) Your 'winning streak' includes a multi-term republican president. No its not like the left-wing Democrats had a hammerlock on the presidency during that entire period

2) It ignores the fact that in the early 20th century, the Democrats in some ways were less appealing to minorities than the Republicans were. (It wasn't until the mid-20th century that the Democrats and Republicans re-alligned, with the Democrats becoming the more racially appealing party and the Republicans becoming the party of the bigot)

3) It ignores all the other issues that were going on at the time... FDR was a war-time president (and that often increases popularity). And LBJ likely benefited from sympathy over the assassination of Kennedy. So the Democrat's victories at the time weren't all necessarily due to their left wing politics.
__________________
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 25th February 2019, 11:32 AM   #269
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
...These folks y'all are so angry with for not voting for Clinton often lean somewhat independent more than they lean "Democratic Party Loyalist". The party loyalist crowd has a major "out of touch and unaware of it" problem going on with this stuff...too out of touch to be able to begin to guess how far out of touch you are.
Your assessment is, at the least in reference to myself, anecdotally correct.

I was originally registered and voted as a Republican in the '60s. I voted Democratic (nationally) for the first time in the mid '70s. I became a registered Independent in the early '90s, and I almost registered as a Democratic voter in the early '00s and again in the mid '10s, but ultimately rejected that course of action both times. Through all of this I have always remained a committed Progressive (my family lionized President (Theodore) Roosevelt), this is what led me to leave the GOP and later, to reject the DNC. This is also why, after vocally and actively supporting H. Clinton in her 2007/2008 run for the Democratic nomination, and watching her self-unmasking during Obama's administration, there was very little she could have done to win back my support, especially against the most Progressive candidate to enter mainstream American politics in over a century.
__________________
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 25th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #270
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,044
Ike was the only anomaly in the democrat's winning streak between frd and lbj, and the dems wanted ike as one of their own:

https://millercenter.org/president/e...-and-elections

Quote:
Even Harry S. Truman tried to interest Eisenhower in a run for the presidency. As the election year of 1948 approached, Truman, who became President when Franklin D. Roosevelt died in 1945, seemed to have little chance of winning a full term of his own. In a private meeting, Truman proposed that he and Eisenhower run together on the Democratic ticket, with Eisenhower as the presidential candidate and Truman in second position.
Ike understood people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-1-1954-799178

Quote:
On this day in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law a major expansion of the nation’s Social Security program.
How crazy is that, that both parties understood that being able to genuinely promise the people economic security was the ticket to power?
__________________
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 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 25th February 2019, 02:30 PM   #271
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Probably this part:
That part doesn't necessarily apply to mid-tier banks like the erstwhile Beer Stearns.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 25th February 2019, 02:44 PM   #272
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Ike was the only anomaly in the democrat's winning streak between frd and lbj, and the dems wanted ike as one of their own:

https://millercenter.org/president/e...-and-elections

Ike understood people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-1-1954-799178

How crazy is that, that both parties understood that being able to genuinely promise the people economic security was the ticket to power?
I always liked Ike, one of the few later Republican (generally Progressive) presidents. He had some issues but definitely had some strong progressive attributes.
__________________
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 25th February 2019, 07:40 PM   #273
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
A New (largely meaningless, at this point) Poll since Sanders announced candidacy...

"Bernie Takes Early Lead In New Hampshire Democratic Primary;..."
https://emersonpolling.com/2019/02/2...n-sen-shaheen/


__________________
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, 01:41 AM   #274
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,019
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
More to the point though... It's not fair to blame a candidate for dumb things their followers say. And given your notable proclivity to leap to hyperbolic conclusions based on what anonymous bozos post on social media, you would be well advised to take a deep breath and not paint yourself into an idiotic corner.

I get that it can seem like that but consider this, if I see fellow supporters getting out of line online I call them out. I've never seen that happen with Bernie supporters. About a week ago John Cusack, notable Bernie supporter, with over a hundred thousand followers posted the names and @'s of prominent Bernie critics, many of whom I followed, and the dogpile was on. Several of them, who I should point out are just private citizens and not paid pundits or journalists, ended up having to go offline because their mentions were suddenly inundated with attacks.


That is reprehensible. He used his celebrity to direct a swarm of attacks on normal people that had posted negative things about Bernie. No one in the Bernie camp has ever spoken up about this let alone condemned it. It drove several of the people offline and the others had to lockdown their account and set them to private.


In this new age where so much of the political battles are now won or lost in social media there has to be a certain accountability for how the war is waged.


Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Just realize that one of the biggest risks in 2020 is that dim-witted lefties, unable to grasp the existential threat that Trump poses, adopt the same sort of attitude about purity as you put on display here.

About that hyperbole... You're boldly crossing the threshold into self-parody here.

Yeah yeah I'm a bit sore. The Cusack attack in particular hurt many people who I had become friends with. No matter what we can't let Trump win again. I agree with that.


Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
Here's what I find so funny about Democrats. I used to think that they were about pragmatism. Ideology be damned. You're supposed to back the candidate who can win. Winning is the only thing that matters! I think that's backwards morally, but I can kind of see where they're coming from. You want to put up a lesser-evil candidate who can beat the greater-evil Republican.

What Bernie revealed is that the whole "pragmatism" thing is a load of bull. Both in 2016 and 2020, Bernie's their most compelling candidate, and the one most likely to beat Trump. The Democrats apparently aren't interested in beating Trump, though. They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill. He's not a "real Democrat", he's too white, too old, too male, etc. etc. They would rather lose with the "right" candidate than win with the "wrong" one. In other words, they're doing exactly what they accuse the Green Party of doing.

I'm honestly quite doubtful that Bernie could have actually won. It was well known that the Republicans were actually laying off him because he was doing so much damage to Hillary. They were testing out lines of attacks and had even focus grouped a bunch of things they could use but ended up letting him be so that he could damage Hillary as much as possible.



But...if he had somehow pulled out a victory then those kid gloves come off and they start hammering on his own refusal to disclose taxes, on his wife's scandals, on how he is an atheist of Jewish descent. Trust me Bernie's popularity was due in large part to how little many knew about him leaving him to be a projection of what people wanted to believe. Once the entire Republican attack machine was gunning for him all the old skeletons would come out of the closet.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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, 08:47 AM   #275
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,432
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
I'm hearing good things about Someone Else. They may be the candidate we need!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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, 09:39 AM   #276
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Ike was the only anomaly in the democrat's winning streak between frd and lbj
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.

Quote:
...and the dems wanted ike as one of their own:
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.
__________________
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, 09:50 AM   #277
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,515
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm hearing good things about Someone Else. They may be the candidate we need!
LOL, well, she's ran in a lot of races, and though she has occasionally held leads, so far she hasn't won any of those contests. I've supported her in a great many of her campaigns, perhaps her time is coming this time around!
__________________
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, 12:27 PM   #278
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,595
Here's what Trump had to say about the news that Bernie is running again. Trump came off sounding almost like a Bernie supporter. The fact that Trump did not viciously attack Bernie (yet) can only mean he wants Bernie to win the Democrat nomination because Trump believes he can defeat Bernie.

I personally don't believe Trump, on his own, could defeat the town drunk if he was running for dog catcher. But I believe Russia can defeat some people. I believe Fox News and it's ilk can defeat some people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvqZ9v-t2OU
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown 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, 12:39 PM   #279
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,921
Re: Far-left Democrats and their history of success...

Just thought of one other thing.

Kellyb seemed to suggest that the Democrats needed 'progressive' policies in order to win elections like they did in the times of FDR and LBJ. I've already challenged her claims, but thought of one other thing:

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?
__________________
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, 01:00 PM   #280
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,113
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Re: Far-left Democrats and their history of success...

Just thought of one other thing.

Kellyb seemed to suggest that the Democrats needed 'progressive' policies in order to win elections like they did in the times of FDR and LBJ. I've already challenged her claims, but thought of one other thing:

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?
I would humbly suggest that the attitudes of the electorate has changed since the 80's. But I agree that progressive politics were a non starter at that time and the Clinton-era move towards the right was the expedient thing for the Democratic party at the time.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey 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 04:52 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.