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 , Elizabeth Warren , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 21st March 2018, 03:21 PM   #81
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Interesting, but not exactly as you present it. 58% of Americans prefered Bernie's scheme over the ACA. True that is better than the 51% that preferred Trump's scheme over the ACA, but it doesn't show how the figures would come out in a head to head clash, especially after the Republicans did a trash job on Bernie's scheme as they did with the ACA.
Is there evidence the GOP campaign against the ACA actually made people hate it who favored it previously, as opposed to just working those who already hated it from the get-go into an outright fury?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 21st March 2018, 03:21 PM   #82
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,708
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Nobody, according to the article I referenced. But it would seem rather foolish to assume that if you fail to elect a candidate that is very far left, that somehow if you select someone that is very VERY far left (like Sanders) that it will somehow change the results.

Many people don't like extremes. Its a pretty simple concept.
Errr. Have you seen our President and Congress (and statehouses, school boards, at al)?

Globally, center parties are quite anemic, either relying on fringe parties for coalitions, lost in a coalition, displaced by a coalition of fringe parties, etc.

There are right and left versions all across the OECD.

ETA: Republicans integrated the Tea Party in the American version of a coalition to massive (electoral) success over time. The Democrats have made only tepid gestures to their side's extremes and seem to underperform. It's not the whole answer, but in context of the global shift (towards fringe parties, more right than left) it tracks.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 21st March 2018 at 03:26 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 21st March 2018, 03:24 PM   #83
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,262
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What democrat has run in the general who's as far left as Sanders or FDR in the last 50 years?
LBJ. Civil Rights, War on Poverty. In fact, if it wasn't for the Vietnam War, he would easily be my favorite President in my lifetime.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 21st March 2018, 03:32 PM   #84
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
LBJ. Civil Rights, War on Poverty. In fact, if it wasn't for the Vietnam War, he would easily be my favorite President in my lifetime.
Doesn't the 1964 election miss the 50 year cutoff by 4 years, tho?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 21st March 2018, 05:03 PM   #85
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
- Provided a reference to an analysis (see the Mother Jones link in a previous post) that shows that NO democrat holding far-left views has won a general election in the past half century. None. Election success (at least on the democratic side) tends to go to the moderates. Those with far-left views tend to go down to defeat (Oh, but I'm sure somehow Bernie would have been different!)
And when was the last time a far-right loon of the Trump caliber won a general election? It's almost as if this election was a bit different and that the electorate wanted someone different. Someone who was not the standard politician and instead a candidate they felt was genuine and had integrity. (I know that's insane to apply to Trump but nonetheless it's how many of his voters felt and continue to feel regardless of how inaccurate it may be.)

Quote:
- Suggested that "Oh, I'm sure people will forgive him for being at a rally that favored killing Americans" (and forgive him for wanting to dump radioactive waste in minority areas. And forgive him for saying rape is OK.)
I'm not familiar with the dumping radioactive waste in minority areas nor saying rape is ok. Do you have a source on those?

if all the Trump voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Trump and still vote for him, and Clinton voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Clinton and still vote for her, why should Sanders be any different?

Ultimately this is unknowable. There are valid arguments on both sides. I think it really comes down to how many votes Sanders would have lost from minorities/moderates staying home or voting Trump/3rd party vs how many votes he would have gained from the people who stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party because they didn't like Clinton. Based on the polls showing Sanders doing better than Clinton vs Trump, the admittedly anecdotal examples of people here, other forums, social media, and real life people I know, myself included, who did not vote Clinton but would have voted Sanders, and the lack of examples the other way around lead me to believe Sanders could have won the general election. I live in Wisconsin, which is one of the swing states that went to Trump and where Sanders was in my opinion more popular than Clinton for the reasons i've given in this thread. So perhaps that biases my view in this matter.

What I can tell you is that if the democratic party continues to ignore, dismiss, and disparage the progressive wing it's not going to serve them well.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 05:25 PM   #86
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post

What I can tell you is that if the democratic party continues to ignore, dismiss, and disparage the progressive wing it's not going to serve them well.
I think the donor class would rather lose and stay economically "centric" (right leaning by historical and international standards) than win but have to significantly shift left policy-wise.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 21st March 2018, 05:41 PM   #87
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,091
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Is there evidence the GOP campaign against the ACA actually made people hate it who favored it previously, as opposed to just working those who already hated it from the get-go into an outright fury?
This would be rather hard to find since the Republican attacks on the ACA started pretty much at the same time as the bill was being created and brought into being. It was the same time that they coined the term Obamacare and started with the claims of Death Panels and more.

It clearly did have some effect though as even in Feb of 2017 a survey showed that 35% of Americans did not understand that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing. 80% of Republicans disapproved of Obamacare, while only 60% of them disapproved of the ACA. 50% of Republicans thought that repealing Obamacare may have an affect in people enrolled on the ACA. Democrats did better with 80% realising that there would be an effect.

What we also know is that the ACA gained in popularity as people learned what it was compared to the Republicans ACHA bills.

ETA: Looking at the blueprint for Obamacare, which was Massachusetts' Romneycare, it had approval ratings of 67-68%
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 21st March 2018 at 05:46 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 21st March 2018, 05:45 PM   #88
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post

It clearly did have some effect though as even in Feb of 2017 a survey showed that 35% of Americans did not understand that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing. 80% of Republicans disapproved of Obamacare, while only 60% of them disapproved of the ACA. 50% of Republicans thought that repealing Obamacare may have an affect in people enrolled on the ACA. Democrats did better with 80% realising that there would be an effect.
I don't see how that demonstrates an effect. It just means they'd never heard "Obamacare", aka "that health care idea being pushed by Obama and the Democrats", referred to as "The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act" yet.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 21st March 2018, 06:00 PM   #89
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,091
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I don't see how that demonstrates an effect. It just means they'd never heard "Obamacare", aka "that health care idea being pushed by Obama and the Democrats", referred to as "The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act" yet.
It does show that the Republican machine did have an effect in that by branding the ACA as Obamacare they were able to make people dislike something that when they heard about it without the name Obamacare they actually liked.

Also, though my edit was a bit late for you, we can see that Massachusetts' Romneycare was well liked, with approval ratings up to around 70%, yet the national scheme which was modelled on it, Obamacare, had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks, and then rose in popularity as the Republicans showed their hand as being far worse.

I think that it does clearly show that much of the belief around Obamacare was formed by the attacks on it by the Republicans, and to believe that they would not have done the same, with the same results, to Sander's proposals is living in a dream world.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 21st March 2018, 06:04 PM   #90
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It does show that the Republican machine did have an effect in that by branding the ACA as Obamacare they were able to make people dislike something that when they heard about it without the name Obamacare they actually liked.

Also, though my edit was a bit late for you, we can see that Massachusetts' Romneycare was well liked, with approval ratings up to around 70%, yet the national scheme which was modelled on it, Obamacare, had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks, and then rose in popularity as the Republicans showed their hand as being far worse.

I think that it does clearly show that much of the belief around Obamacare was formed by the attacks on it by the Republicans,
They did't like Obama. They knew he had some health care plan, and they opposed it before they knew much about it. It's was Obama's version of Trump's wall during the campaign.

Can I get a link on this part?

"had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks"
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 21st March 2018, 06:27 PM   #91
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,091
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
They did't like Obama. They knew he had some health care plan, and they opposed it before they knew much about it. It's was Obama's version of Trump's wall during the campaign.
And why do you think that they opposed it? It can't have been because they didn't like Obama, his approval ratings were higher than the approval rating for Obamacare, so why do you think that people were put off Obamacare even before it was passed?

Quote:
Can I get a link on this part?

"had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks"
You really need a link to how badly Obamacare was disliked? And how it fell to a 33% approval rating? Your memory is that short? Fine.

So there we have it. As the Republican Romneycare it was getting near enough to a 70% approval. Rename it Obamacare and attack it with all guns, and it drops to a 33% approval.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 21st March 2018, 08:36 PM   #92
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,357
I get the impression the center-lefts here are kinda concerned Bernie would just be unfairly dismissed by the general population, but half-hearted concern of course.

But look, Trump is in office. Now's the time to start the honest conversation about what socialism is and isn't, how it's not scary, how Social Democrats in the vein of FDR, LBJ, JFK, etc actually helped the U.S. tremendously, how single payer is actually good, or if not, at least how we can improve the ACA.

Let's focus our energy into educating those people that social democrats aren't scary, like what Sanders is doing with his town halls, so that we don't have to be constantly playing damage control during the next election.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 08:44 PM   #93
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,357
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Sometimes it's important to know where the last war went wrong before fighting the next one, and making knee jerk reaction changes might just put you in a worse losing position overall if you don't pay close attention to the things that led to the first failure.
If we can say Sanders had skeletons in his closet that, *gasp* could be used against him, how about we look at the fact that Clinton was very unpopular and her name was tainted by the FBI investigations and general right wing propaganda.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 09:13 PM   #94
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Quote:
It can't have been because they didn't like Obama, his approval ratings were higher than the approval rating for Obamacare
That's a non sequitur. You can be ok-ish with a politician personally, but disagree with a policy change they promote.

Quote:
, so why do you think that people were put off Obamacare even before it was passed?
Because they're ideologically opposed to government interference in the "free market. "

Quote:
And how it fell to a 33% approval rating?
And then it was up to 50% soon after. There wasn't an overall change/trend over the tracked period, just normal month to month fluctuation.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 21st March 2018 at 09:16 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 21st March 2018, 09:30 PM   #95
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What democrat has run in the general who's as far left as Sanders or FDR in the last 50 years?
Both Clinton and Obama, according to the campaigns that got them elected. (Their failures to do as promised once they were in don't change what it was that got them elected.)
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:28 AM   #96
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,258
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
Does it bother anybody else that Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders are protectionists/economic nationalists/mercantilists just like Donald Trump, Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, Reed Smoot, and Willis Hawley?
Yep.

Quote:
How many times must we relearn the lessons of history?
Relearn?
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 01:31 AM   #97
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,258
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The polls during the primaries showed Sanders beating Trump and Clinton losing to Trump, for whatever those polls are worth.
Sanders should have run as an independent - then we would have seen what those polls were worth.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 02:53 AM   #98
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,091
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That's a non sequitur. You can be ok-ish with a politician personally, but disagree with a policy change they promote.
Except that if it was merely the policy that they didn't like, it wouldn't matter if it was called Obamacare or the ACA, they would dislike them equally. That Obamacare was disliked more than the ACA, despite them being the same thing, indicates that there was something more then just the disagreement with policy going on.

Quote:
Because they're ideologically opposed to government interference in the "free market. "
Except this clearly isn't the case because both RomneyCare and Sanders single payer systems were/are popular, and both also involve "government interference in the 'free market.'" If someone was ideologically opposed to the ACA on that ground, then they would also have to oppose RomneyCare and Sander's plan, and they don't.

Quote:
And then it was up to 50% soon after. There wasn't an overall change/trend over the tracked period, just normal month to month fluctuation.
What the? Seriously? Take another look because your reality is drifting off into the Twilight Zone.

The Popularity of Obamacare started at about 45% at launch in 2010 before peaking at 50% in July, and then dropping steadily over the next two years to a low of 33% in late 2013. It then began to pick up slowly, but it didn't get back up into the 50's again until this year, well after the abomination of the ACHA that the Republicans failed to pass.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 22nd March 2018 at 02:54 AM.
PhantomWolf 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 22nd March 2018, 05:15 AM   #99
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Quote:
Except that if it was merely the policy that they didn't like, it wouldn't matter if it was called Obamacare or the ACA, they would dislike them equally. That Obamacare was disliked more than the ACA, despite them being the same thing, indicates that there was something more then just the disagreement with policy going on.
They didn't even know the name of the actual policy, much less what was in it. That's all it demonstrates. Who knows what they thought the "ACA" was as opposed to "Obamacare".

Quote:
Except this clearly isn't the case because both RomneyCare and Sanders single payer systems were/are popular, and both also involve "government interference in the 'free market.'" If someone was ideologically opposed to the ACA on that ground, then they would also have to oppose RomneyCare and Sander's plan, and they don't.
You're WAY overestimating the political literacy of the average American here. Not even most democrats were (or are?) aware of the fact that the ACA is Heritage-care/Romneycare.


Quote:
Seriously? Take another look because your reality is drifting off into the Twilight Zone.
The overall unfavorable trend from the start of data collection to present is flat, around 41%. The peak of overall unfavorability happened in July of 2014, when 53% of people disliked it and only 37% liked it.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 22nd March 2018, 06:34 AM   #100
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,043
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:
Okay, still not seeing your point. I'll ignore the fact that this data is 14 years old; I'm still not seeing where it says what you think it says.

That chart lists total expenditure, which is roughly $6k per person.

Only a bit less that $3k of that is public expenditure; the rest is private.

So the medicare tax would have to, roughly, be doubled to cover everyone. I'm not seeing how the $3k public expenditure can cover $6k per capita spending.

You do understand, I hope, that EVERYONE in the U.S. pays into Medicare and Medicaid, not just the people using it, right? It's part of the withholdings on income.

ETA: Wait, I think I see the point you're trying to make now. The countries using some sort of single-payer spend less that just what we spend now on Medicare/Medicaid. That's where you're going with this, right? Got it now, thanks!

Still think that may not be a good comparison, though, because healthcare simply costs more over here. I'm not convinced just swapping to single payer will reduce those costs by over 50% (I expect it would make a significant dent, though).

Last edited by Hellbound; 22nd March 2018 at 06:41 AM.
Hellbound 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 22nd March 2018, 06:45 AM   #101
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:
This is the argument that should be used for universal coverage. The rights based argument doesn't work on conservatives but "we already pay for it and don't get it" might.
ahhell 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 22nd March 2018, 06:52 AM   #102
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
ETA: Wait, I think I see the point you're trying to make now. The countries using some sort of single-payer spend less that just what we spend now on Medicare/Medicaid. That's where you're going with this, right? Got it now, thanks!

Still think that may not be a good comparison, though, because healthcare simply costs more over here. I'm not convinced just swapping to single payer will reduce those costs by over 50% (I expect it would make a significant dent, though).
Yep.
Regarding the bolded, it costs more for reasons that have largely been sussed out and can be fixed. It's fantastically complicated breaking down where the heck all that money goes in the US compared to the single payer countries, but most of the groundwork there has actually been done. Most of the problems converting will come from people currently "profiteering" off the current system and making $250k+ a year, being reduced to "wage earner" status as managers under single payer.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 22nd March 2018 at 06:54 AM.
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 22nd March 2018, 07:46 AM   #103
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Quote:
Many people don't like extremes. Its a pretty simple concept.
Errr. Have you seen our President and Congress (and statehouses, school boards, at al)?
Yes I have. Which admittedly doesn't exactly support my premise.

But I think the difference is that left wing and/or moderate voters are often better informed and more likely to make decisions based on evidence and reason. These are the type of voters that will weigh look at policy decisions. On the other hand, the right wing tends to cater to bigots and religious hypocrites, who are less discerning when voting.

I should also point out that the current republican administration may be an outlier. I haven't seen the same sort of analysis for republican presidents as I have for democrats. But after googling a bit, I found:
- While Reagan is some sort of god-like figure to the republicans, when he was gov. of California he brought in both tax increases and pro-environment legislation. So anyone looking at his candidacy in 1980 might have seen him as more moderate
- When gov. of California, Bush Jr. actually tried (unsuccessfully) to increase business taxes, and pushed for green energy. Again, policies that might make him seem more moderate than his presidency ended up being

Quote:
Globally, center parties are quite anemic, either relying on fringe parties for coalitions, lost in a coalition, displaced by a coalition of fringe parties, etc.
First of all, the U.S. does not have a "center party"... they have a right and a left wing party. The democratic party is not "center" so trying to compare the U.S. situation to other countries is a mistake.

Secondly, the Canadian Liberal party (our "center" party) has won more elections and been in charge longer than the right wing conservative party and/or the left wing NDP. So politicians CAN find success in the middle.

Quote:
ETA: Republicans integrated the Tea Party in the American version of a coalition to massive (electoral) success over time.
Ummmm... the tea party movement has only been around since the start of the Obama administration, and in that time, Obama handily won a second term.

By the way, I am specifically talking about the election of the president and the need for presidential candidates to maintain policies favorable to moderates. I make no claim that it applies to senate or house candidates, since those politicians and their platforms get much less attention paid to their candidacy than those running for the white house.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 07:58 AM   #104
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Quote:
What democrat has run in the general who's as far left as Sanders or FDR in the last 50 years?
Both Clinton and Obama, according to the campaigns that got them elected. (Their failures to do as promised once they were in don't change what it was that got them elected.)
Go back and look at the reference I provided. It measures how "left wing" candidates were based on their voting records in congress (or when they were gov).

While both Bill Clinton and Obama were solidly democratic and to the left of the American political spectrum, their voting records were not as far to the left as those of Sanders (or of Gore, Dukakis, etc.)
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 08:30 AM   #105
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Quote:
- Suggested that "Oh, I'm sure people will forgive him for being at a rally that favored killing Americans" (and forgive him for wanting to dump radioactive waste in minority areas. And forgive him for saying rape is OK.)
I'm not familiar with the dumping radioactive waste in minority areas nor saying rape is ok. Do you have a source on those?
You're not familiar with that? But according to KellyB, each and every member of the American electorate had already heard of those and absolved Sanders!

Actually I'm being sarcastic. You're actually making my point for me... These were issues that could be damaging to a presidential campaign, but weren't widely discussed during the primaries. (The republicans were holding off on going after Sanders unless/until he won the primaries.) The fact that you (probably a more educated voter than average) was unaware of those issues means that they were probably were unknown to the general electorate.

I should also point out that Sanders never actually claimed that "Rape is OK". He wrote a paper that used that concept (but included additional information pointing out that no, rape is not ok), but when the Republican media blitz starts, Sanders words will be taken out of context.

I provided a reference to those particular issues multiple times, the last time back in post 28. (Its from a newsweek piece)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=28

Quote:
if all the Trump voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Trump and still vote for him, and Clinton voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Clinton and still vote for her, why should Sanders be any different?
Well, Clinton lost, so its likely that republican smear techniques (including manufacturing non-existent scandals. Bengazhi!) had the desired effect of cutting into her voter base. And while Trump won the election, he also lost the popular vote (and got fewer votes than Romney) so the terrible aspects of Trump probably had an effect as well.

The big difference with Sanders is that any scandals (real or manufactured) are hidden, allowing him to ride a wave of supposed popularity.

Quote:
Ultimately this is unknowable. There are valid arguments on both sides.
While it might be "unknowable", I've at least brought some evidence to the table... potential scandals that were hidden to the electorate, an analysis showing far-left candidates tend to lose U.S. elections.

On the other hand, those suggesting Sanders could win are basing their arguments on lots of hand-waving... "Oh, I'm sure he could magically conjour up something that will become a rallying cry! People will ignore the tax increases his plans would require because they'll get a magical transformation that will convince them to give up their own money for the greater good".

Quote:
I think it really comes down to how many votes Sanders would have lost from minorities/moderates staying home or voting Trump/3rd party vs how many votes he would have gained from the people who stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party because they didn't like Clinton. Based on the polls showing Sanders doing better than Clinton vs Trump
Which again are irrelevant because the Republicans never got a chance to engage in any partisan attacks on Sanders.
Quote:
the admittedly anecdotal examples of people here
Again, not relevant, because your average poster here is likely better informed and more intelligent than the "average" American.
Quote:
other forums, social media, and real life people I know, myself included, who did not vote Clinton but would have voted Sanders
Ummm.... say what?

Remember when I suggested posters here were more intelligent than the average American? Well, maybe I was wrong.

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron, not much better than the idiots who wear confederate flag T-shirts and chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies. People like that are almost as responsible for getting the current Racist in office as those who actually supported Trump from the beginning. Congrats.... thanks to people like that we got a leader who thinks neo-nazis are "fine people" and that adding billions to the debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is good economic policy.

You could have had a leader that would have kept Frank-Dodd in place. But no, because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint (Wah! I wanted the guy who was never a Democrat to win the party leadership!) we're likely going to lose those regulations. You could have had a candidate who would have kept the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement, but because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint you've got a president who thinks climate change is a hoax and coal ash should be dumped in the waterways.
Quote:
What I can tell you is that if the democratic party continues to ignore, dismiss, and disparage the progressive wing it's not going to serve them well.
And if the progressive wing continues to assume "its our way or the highway" the Democrats will continue to have problems.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 09:00 AM   #106
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yep.
Regarding the bolded, it costs more for reasons that have largely been sussed out and can be fixed. It's fantastically complicated breaking down where the heck all that money goes in the US compared to the single payer countries, but most of the groundwork there has actually been done. Most of the problems converting will come from people currently "profiteering" off the current system and making $250k+ a year, being reduced to "wage earner" status as managers under single payer.
Ok, lets get a few things straight...

First of all, there is really only one significant "single payer" health care system in the world, and that is Canada. All other countries (including the ones labeled "single payer") tend to have a mixture of private and public health care (and those covered in the commonwealth fund reports) use a mixture of public and private funding. (Some, like Britain, have universal coverage but allow private insurance. Others, like Switzerland, use private insurance but subsidize those who can't afford it.) Before you try to decide what you think health care should look like you need to actually understand what you're talking about. And in general, Canada's health care system sucks. While its cheaper than the U.S. system, it also has problems with things like waiting lists, physician shortages, etc.

Before you start voting for heath care changes and pushing for "single payer", perhaps you need to figure out what you actually mean by that.... True "single payer/no private funding at all"? Universal coverage by the government but allowing doctors to work outside the system? This is why I think polls pointing to support for "single payer" are flawed... because people the reference is incredibly vague and doesn't have the details people need to make an informed decision.

Secondly... there are actually many reasons why health care is expensive in the U.S.. While you may point to insurance companies (with well-paid executives) as a cause, switching to a public system may not necessarily be much better, as the rank-and-file workers are often unionized. There are other reasons why U.S. health care is more expensive compared to other countries: excess capacity (which means you don't have long waiting lists), expensive liability court costs, habit of doctors to order more tests than other countries and adopt heroic measures (e.g. keeping premature babies alive) and the use of newer technology. Yes, a public system could control costs by reducing capacity, not using resources on patients with poor outcomes, etc.... but those may not necessarily be popular.

Lastly, and most importantly... it is all totally irrelevant. You can point to the need for single payer. You can put together iron-clad arguments about why its better than the ACA. You can shout it to the wind. But all that will likely be irrelevant because your average voter is not likely to care because even if you control total health care costs, money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 09:06 AM   #107
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron, not much better than the idiots who wear confederate flag T-shirts and chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies. People like that are almost as responsible for getting the current Racist in office as those who actually supported Trump from the beginning. Congrats.... thanks to people like that we got a leader who thinks neo-nazis are "fine people" and that adding billions to the debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is good economic policy.

You could have had a leader that would have kept Frank-Dodd in place. But no, because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint (Wah! I wanted the guy who was never a Democrat to win the party leadership!) we're likely going to lose those regulations. You could have had a candidate who would have kept the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement, but because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint you've got a president who thinks climate change is a hoax and coal ash should be dumped in the waterways.

And if the progressive wing continues to assume "its our way or the highway" the Democrats will continue to have problems.
Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate. Enough people in enough key areas were willing to vote for a racist tangerine than have her as President. That's on her. Even if the Bernie segment would have pushed her numbers over the edge, it's still entirely her fault that people were willing to throw their vote away rather than support her. No one wanted her as President, she was just the option presented. Even your own post speaks to that.

Now, Bernie might have won, or might also have lost. We'll probably never know. But arguing that he would have lost doesn't mean much because Clinton also lost. "Back our losing candidate!" isn't a good political slogan.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 22nd March 2018 at 09:08 AM.
Beelzebuddy 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 22nd March 2018, 09:16 AM   #108
surrogate
Critical Thinker
 
surrogate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere within the Orion Arm
Posts: 387
I think some of the posters in this thread are seriously underestimating the effectiveness of the GOP smear machine with people who don't follow politics closely. It is one of the two things they are really good at, the other being lurching toward the center in the general election by promising unrealistic things that they have no plan for.

Last edited by surrogate; 22nd March 2018 at 09:19 AM.
surrogate 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 22nd March 2018, 09:20 AM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,734
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron
That's not true, though. Me, for example. I'm not a moron, I just disagree with your conclusions. The quoted statement is a clear example of a bigoted stereotype. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain from parading such opinions around in public like that.
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 22nd March 2018, 09:22 AM   #110
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,734
Originally Posted by surrogate View Post
I think some of the posters in this thread are seriously underestimating the effectiveness of the GOP smear machine with people who don't follow politics closely.
I'm not sure it's possible to underestimate the effect of something on people who aren't paying attention to it.

I dunno, though. Maybe I'm seriously underestimating the effect of New York Fashion Week on people who don't give a toss about couture.
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 22nd March 2018, 09:32 AM   #111
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate. Enough people in enough key areas were willing to vote for a racist tangerine than have her as President. That's on her.
Actually its not all on her...

After all, part of the reason she was seen as a "crappy candidate" was because of constant republican attacks (many/most of them false and manufactured)... I swear that Fox news anchors probably have orgasms when they hear the name Benghazi.

Sanders was never tested in the way that Clinton was.

Plus she was born without a penis. Which she probably isn't to blame for either.

About the only thing she might well and truly be blamed for is not campaigning in certain states that they thought were solidly democratic. But given the fact that polling numbers didn't really highlight the problems there until it was too late.
Quote:
Even if the Bernie segment would have pushed her numbers over the edge, it's still entirely her fault that people were willing to throw their vote away rather than support her.
The U.S. is a democracy... as such, people do have a certain amount of power when it comes to elections. They can vote rationally to give power to a politician that gives the best options for the country moving forward, or they can act like spoiled brats. Guess what many BernieBros did?

Sorry, but I am not willing to absolve someone who decides to take a course of action that allows a neo-Nazi supporter to become president just because they think "Waaa!! I'm not getting my favorite candidate so I'm not going to support the person who gives MOST of what I want and will instead support the person who gives NOTHING that I want". BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected. They are almost as culpable as the bigots who supported Trump right from the start.
Quote:
No one wanted her as President, she was just the option presented.
Well given the fact that she won the popular vote, I'd say there were plenty of people who DID want her as president.
Quote:
Now, Bernie might have won, or might also have lost. We'll probably never know.
Even if we won't know for sure, evidence suggests he would have lost. Those suggesting he might have won tend to rely on some pretty powerful "he'll conjour up a rallying point" magic. (or as another poster pointed out, the "lost political tribe" would somehow show up and put Sanders over the top.)
Quote:
But arguing that he would have lost doesn't mean much because Clinton also lost. "Back our losing candidate!" isn't a good political slogan.
What "slogan"? People made a foolish claim (Sanders would have won). That claim was challenged and evidence was provided. We aren't suggesting that the Democrats run Clinton again in 2020.

That's the nature of this forum... people make statements, others challenge them.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

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

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 09:43 AM   #112
surrogate
Critical Thinker
 
surrogate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere within the Orion Arm
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure it's possible to underestimate the effect of something on people who aren't paying attention to it.

I dunno, though. Maybe I'm seriously underestimating the effect of New York Fashion Week on people who don't give a toss about couture.
Do you really not comprehend the difference between someone who follows politics closely and someone tangentially exposed to political ads on TV and social media?
surrogate 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 22nd March 2018, 09:43 AM   #113
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Quote:
Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron
That's not true, though. Me, for example. I'm not a moron, I just disagree with your conclusions. The quoted statement is a clear example of a bigoted stereotype. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain from parading such opinions around in public like that.
Actually its quite true.

Trump was a bigot... it was obvious before the campaign (getting charged for not renting to minorities). It was obvious during the campaign (Mexicans are rapists). It is obvious after he took office (Neo-nazis are fine people).

People who voted for Trump either were bigots themselves, or were A-Ok with a president who was a bigot. As much as trump supporters try to use arguments like "but Emails! Benghazi!", those are merely fig-leafs... thin veneers used to hide support for a bigoted candidate.

In the last election, voters had a choice: give power to a bigot or don't give power to a bigot. Trump voters and BernieBros who didn't vote for Clinton made their choice: Power to the bigot.

You may not like the accusation, but its a harsh truth.
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 09:55 AM   #114
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post

Lastly, and most importantly... it is all totally irrelevant. You can point to the need for single payer. You can put together iron-clad arguments about why its better than the ACA. You can shout it to the wind. But all that will likely be irrelevant because your average voter is not likely to care because even if you control total health care costs, money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services.
If you want to debate the (irrelevant to you) merits and drawbacks of the systems generally referred to as "single payer", we can, but we should start a new thread for that.

Regarding: "money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services", sure. But after the costs of transitioning, we wouldn't necessarily have to pay more in taxes than we do. Like I keep mentioning, what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone covers 100% of the population under NHS and Canadian-style "single payer".
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
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 22nd March 2018, 10:15 AM   #115
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Actually its not all on her...

After all, part of the reason she was seen as a "crappy candidate" was because of constant republican attacks (many/most of them false and manufactured)... I swear that Fox news anchors probably have orgasms when they hear the name Benghazi.

Sanders was never tested in the way that Clinton was.

Plus she was born without a penis. Which she probably isn't to blame for either.

About the only thing she might well and truly be blamed for is not campaigning in certain states that they thought were solidly democratic. But given the fact that polling numbers didn't really highlight the problems there until it was too late.
So was it the propaganda or the sexism that led her to make cringeworthily stupid jokes like "Trumped-up trickle down" in public appearances? I think she would have made a great president, but she was a terrible candidate. She had the charisma of a potato.

Quote:
The U.S. is a democracy... as such, people do have a certain amount of power when it comes to elections. They can vote rationally to give power to a politician that gives the best options for the country moving forward, or they can act like spoiled brats. Guess what many BernieBros did?

Sorry, but I am not willing to absolve someone who decides to take a course of action that allows a neo-Nazi supporter to become president just because they think "Waaa!! I'm not getting my favorite candidate so I'm not going to support the person who gives MOST of what I want and will instead support the person who gives NOTHING that I want". BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected. They are almost as culpable as the bigots who supported Trump right from the start.
You're still doing it: blaming people for not voting for a candidate they didn't want instead of blaming the candidate for not being what they wanted. Clinton could have appealed more to progressives after the primaries. She didn't. She lost. Her fault.

Quote:
Even if we won't know for sure, evidence suggests he would have lost. Those suggesting he might have won tend to rely on some pretty powerful "he'll conjour up a rallying point" magic. (or as another poster pointed out, the "lost political tribe" would somehow show up and put Sanders over the top.)
Well, one showed up to put Trump over the top. He was supposed to lose, remember? Even he thought so. Turns out having someone that people want to see in office is a pretty damned good idea, even if that person is a treasonous idiot.

Quote:
That's the nature of this forum... people make statements, others challenge them.
... then people continue making the same statements for the next year and a half instead of stopping to consider that they might just have been wrong the whole time.
Beelzebuddy 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 22nd March 2018, 10:51 AM   #116
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,437
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
probably because for the most part, people think he's honest even if they don't agree with him, a rarity among politicians.

I lean more conservative than liberal but I would have voted for Bernie over Trump, I have a hard time believing that there are any liberal/left folks that would have voted Trump over bernie if given the choice. The worst that would have happened is they stay home, which lot did when it was Hillary vs Donald.

That's exactly what the die-hard Trump supporters say about Trump. Often even right after they have been shown incontrovertible proof that he has lied incessantly to them.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta 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 22nd March 2018, 10:59 AM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,734
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Actually its not all on her...
Sure it is. Radical freedom and all that. Knowing that an effective partisan smear campaign had rendered her politically nonviable for high office, she still chose to put herself forward as the most viable candidate, and still chose to focus the resources of the party on supporting her candidacy.

If I put a wall across the racecourse, shame on me. If you see the wall from the starting line, and decide to start your engine and drive straight into it at speed... Shame on you.
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 22nd March 2018, 10:59 AM   #118
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,090
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Plus she was born without a penis.
Not to derail the discussion, but I keep hearing about how being a woman was some sort of negative for her, but I've not seen much in terms of evidence for that claim. By that logic I'd think Obama would never have been elected, never mind twice.

Quote:
BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected.
Bernie didn't do her any favour by delaying his graceful exit from the race and his endorsement of her.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 22nd March 2018 at 11:00 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 22nd March 2018, 11:04 AM   #119
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,090
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You're still doing it: blaming people for not voting for a candidate they didn't want instead of blaming the candidate for not being what they wanted.
Yeah what kind of an idiot blames people for their own choices?
__________________
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 22nd March 2018, 11:27 AM   #120
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
That's exactly what the die-hard Trump supporters say about Trump. Often even right after they have been shown incontrovertible proof that he has lied incessantly to them.
From what I've seen, its more about him being unfiltered than honest.
ahhell 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 04:56 AM.
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.