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 , donald trump , joe biden , presidential candidates , Sanders supporters

Reply
Old 19th July 2020, 09:07 PM   #41
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southern hemisphere
Posts: 7,404
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No. People were worried, but nobody thought we were on the brink.

We've taken a giant leap backwards in the last 4 years.
Adapted from a Russian saying:

Obama took the US to the brink of the chasm!

Trump has taken the US many steps ahead from that.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander 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 20th July 2020, 02:51 AM   #42
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 727
Before 2016 Trump was placed as the anti-establishment candidate whose rhetoric sounded progressive and as if it would shake up the cozy Washington belt way duopoly if implemented. He said he would do many good things for the ordinary people of America. He was an unknown political quantity. 3 1/2 years of proving that he meant none of that rhetoric later and those on the more progressive wing of politics who were willing to give him a chance to shake things up can see from evidence that they were lied to and abandoned by Trump and his team. On top of that has been his pettiness, his greed, his bigotry and his lawlessness. With all that evidence it is unlikely that any large number of Sanders' supporters or independents will give Trump the benefit of the doubt again, however weak the Democrat candidate may seem.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman 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 20th July 2020, 03:24 AM   #43
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,181
Again I suspect what cost Hilary was people who assumed that Trump only having a 1 in 3 chance of winning was the equivalent of zero chance and stayed home or registered a protest vote because they weren't thrilled by Clinton as a candidate. I don't think anyone will be under any such illusions this time.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 20th July 2020, 04:07 AM   #44
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Again I suspect what cost Hilary was people who assumed that Trump only having a 1 in 3 chance of winning was the equivalent of zero chance and stayed home or registered a protest vote because they weren't thrilled by Clinton as a candidate. I don't think anyone will be under any such illusions this time.
In their defense, they didn't think Trump had a 1 in 3 chance. They were told by a lot of people that Trump was guaranteed a loss. I think 538 was the only major organization that was saying "Uh, hey guys, you do realize that Trump has a 1 in 3 chance here".
bonzombiekitty 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 20th July 2020, 05:04 AM   #45
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
I think the same amount of Sanders supporters will support Trump in 2020 as they did in 2016, an insignificant amount.

This canard that unfaithful Sanders boosters cost HRC the election is part of a larger suite of rationalizations for her terrible campaign. She was a weak candidate who ran a bad campaign and lost against a once in a lifetime charlatan. I can see why there is such desperation to externalize the loss, because it's a really embarrassing way to end a long, successful political career.
__________________
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
Old 20th July 2020, 05:06 AM   #46
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 90,804
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No. People were worried, but nobody thought we were on the brink.
I've been hearing apocalytic nonsense from both sides of US politics since the late 90s.

It's true that the signs of the time are worrying, but I think the US will survive Trump.
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 06:11 AM   #47
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,673
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've been hearing apocalytic nonsense from both sides of US politics since the late 90s.

It's true that the signs of the time are worrying, but I think the US will survive Trump.
I will be happy if I can look back on this time shaking my head at my alarmism. At present I've seen too many alarms ignored until it was too late, to comfortably pooh-pooh the remainder. Not only can it happen here, it is happening here. We may yet stop it happening and have the adults in the room spend a few decades slowly unmaking it, but there's no question an apocalypse cult is actively engaged in US politics right now.
Beelzebuddy 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 20th July 2020, 06:13 AM   #48
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 90,804
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I will be happy if I can look back on this time shaking my head at my alarmism. At present I've seen too many alarms ignored until it was too late, to comfortably pooh-pooh the remainder. Not only can it happen here, it is happening here. We may yet stop it happening and have the adults in the room spend a few decades slowly unmaking it, but there's no question an apocalypse cult is actively engaged in US politics right now.
Ok so what are you planning to do about it?
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 06:15 AM   #49
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,379
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
In their defense, they didn't think Trump had a 1 in 3 chance. They were told by a lot of people that Trump was guaranteed a loss. I think 538 was the only major organization that was saying "Uh, hey guys, you do realize that Trump has a 1 in 3 chance here".
The number I've seen the most is a 20% chance of victory.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper 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 20th July 2020, 06:42 AM   #50
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,673
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ok so what are you planning to do about it?
For the moment, bitch about it on the internet. Beyond that, I don't know. It's a compelling question but I don't know if there's any good answer except in hindsight.

Let's assume the worst: that history is repeating and the US is more or less in the later days of the Weimar Republic, with an increasingly-fascist government just looking for a good Reichstag burning to bring in all their proud boys and enforce their order.

What would have been the right and moral thing for an average WR citizen, smart enough to see the signs but not in a position of any real power, to have done? Protest the power grabs? Flee the country? Establish contacts to help others flee? Grab a gun and just start shooting Nazis?
Beelzebuddy 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 20th July 2020, 07:05 AM   #51
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've been hearing apocalytic nonsense from both sides of US politics since the late 90s.
Not with same depth and breadth that we hear today.

Quote:
It's true that the signs of the time are worrying, but I think the US will survive Trump.
Depending on the definition of survival.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 09:47 AM   #52
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This canard that unfaithful Sanders boosters cost HRC the election is part of a larger suite of rationalizations for her terrible campaign. She was a weak candidate who ran a bad campaign and lost against a once in a lifetime charlatan.
Trump also easily beat all the GOP candidates in the Republican primary, so that means they were weak too, right? And Hillary beat Bernie, so he was also weak. So who was the 'strong' candidate who would have beaten Trump in the election?

Now let's examine why Hillary was 'weak'.

1. She's a woman. Women are inherently weak. If a woman attempts to be strong she just comes off as shrill or butch - not truly strong like a man.

2. Decades of Republican smear campaigns.

3. Russians hacking her campaign and spreading propaganda on social media, in a successful attempt to swing the election in Trumps favor.

4. Being a part of the 'establishment'. Never mind that Bernie is too. And Trump.

5. Not being a populist.

Hitler was a populist. He could tap into the fear, the anger, the hate, and get the crowd baying for blood. Trump and Bernie could do it too. But not Hillary. Such a weak candidate!
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 09:52 AM   #53
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,026
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Adapted from a Russian saying:

Obama took the US to the brink of the chasm!

Trump has taken the US many steps ahead from that.
If you're already at the brink, isn't one step all that's left?
Bob001 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 20th July 2020, 09:58 AM   #54
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump also easily beat all the GOP candidates in the Republican primary, so that means they were weak too, right? And Hillary beat Bernie, so he was also weak. So who was the 'strong' candidate who would have beaten Trump in the election?

Now let's examine why Hillary was 'weak'.

1. She's a woman. Women are inherently weak. If a woman attempts to be strong she just comes off as shrill or butch - not truly strong like a man.

2. Decades of Republican smear campaigns.

3. Russians hacking her campaign and spreading propaganda on social media, in a successful attempt to swing the election in Trumps favor.

4. Being a part of the 'establishment'. Never mind that Bernie is too. And Trump.

5. Not being a populist.

Hitler was a populist. He could tap into the fear, the anger, the hate, and get the crowd baying for blood. Trump and Bernie could do it too. But not Hillary. Such a weak candidate!
Nobody said it was fair.

Sure, general sexism means that a woman politician will have to be even better. And the decades of anti Bill and anti Hillary propaganda from the right didn't help. She came into the race with a lot of baggage.

It's pretty clear that the party was making way for Hillary though. Had Bernie not run, there would have been no serious challenger in the primary. A contested primary, including people like Biden and Warren running in 2016 makes for an interesting counterfactual. Would Hillary have still been the candidate if there were other competitors that weren't Bernie? In retrospect, the rest of the party pre-preemptively ceding the nomination to Hillary meant that a weak candidate was allowed to emerge as the head of the party. Even a generic centrist dem would likely have fared better against Trump, given the extremely negative perception that Clinton carries in some minds of the American public.

All this aside, no one made Hillary's campaign treat the "Blue Wall" as safe bets. 100% an unforced error not to prioritize these rust belt swing states that Trump had eating out of his hand with promises of bringing jobs back from overseas.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 20th July 2020 at 10:01 AM.
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
Old 20th July 2020, 09:59 AM   #55
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Let's assume the worst: that history is repeating and the US is more or less in the later days of the Weimar Republic, with an increasingly-fascist government just looking for a good Reichstag burning to bring in all their proud boys and enforce their order.

What would have been the right and moral thing for an average WR citizen, smart enough to see the signs but not in a position of any real power, to have done? Protest the power grabs? Flee the country? Establish contacts to help others flee? Grab a gun and just start shooting Nazis?
E. Vote!

Hitler got into power for one simple reason - too few people voted Democrat.
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 10:02 AM   #56
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,009
Originally Posted by Parsman View Post
Before 2016 Trump was placed as the anti-establishment candidate whose rhetoric sounded progressive and as if it would shake up the cozy Washington belt way duopoly if implemented. He said he would do many good things for the ordinary people of America. He was an unknown political quantity. 3 1/2 years of proving that he meant none of that rhetoric later and those on the more progressive wing of politics who were willing to give him a chance to shake things up can see from evidence that they were lied to and abandoned by Trump and his team. On top of that has been his pettiness, his greed, his bigotry and his lawlessness. With all that evidence it is unlikely that any large number of Sanders' supporters or independents will give Trump the benefit of the doubt again, however weak the Democrat candidate may seem.
And those are his "good" qualities!
Elagabalus 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 20th July 2020, 10:08 AM   #57
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
E. Vote!

Hitler got into power for one simple reason - too few people voted Democrat.
Or not enough people voted communist. A communist controlled Germany would have almost certainly eradicated Nazism and avoided war.

To be serious though, it seems more important to note how much influence the military and the high officers played in day to day politics in Weimar Germany. Since the officers tended towards conservatism, their involvement meant the scales would always tip right in situations of split government.

The entire system was set up to favor a right wing extremist government to seize power. Hell, Hitler tried it once, killed some cops, got arrested, and got a wrist slap for committing armed treason.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 20th July 2020 at 10:23 AM.
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
Old 20th July 2020, 10:24 AM   #58
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
the rest of the party pre-preemptively ceding the nomination to Hillary meant that a weak candidate was allowed to emerge as the head of the party.
So tell me, who was the 'strong' candidate who wasn't allowed to emerge?

Republicans didn't do any 'preemptive ceding', fielding a dizzying array of 17 candidates. Yet Trump trounced the lot of them - every one from Low energy Jeb, to Little Marco, to that guy whose father killed JFK.

Can't think of anyone? Never mind. There's only person the Democrats could have gotten to beat Trump - Trump! That's right, they should have paid Trump to join their party rather than the GOP (and I bet he would have too, for the right price). Because he was clearly the strongest candidate, which is what matters most.

But what did they do instead? Let Bernie pretend to be a Democrat and split the vote.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 20th July 2020 at 10:26 AM.
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 20th July 2020, 10:29 AM   #59
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So tell me, who was the 'strong' candidate who wasn't allowed to emerge?

Republicans didn't do any 'preemptive ceding', fielding a dizzying array of 17 candidates. Yet Trump trounced the lot of them - every one from Low energy Jeb, to Little Marco, to that guy whose father killed JFK.

Can't think of anyone? Never mind. There's only person the Democrats could have gotten to beat Trump - Trump! That's right, they should have paid Trump to join their party rather than the GOP (and I bet he would have for the right price). Because he was clearly the strongest candidate, which is what matters most.

But what did they do instead? Let Bernie pretend to be a Democrat and split the vote.
I don't know.

You criticize the Republican primary for producing Trump. Sure, it's morally abhorrent, but Trump was more popular than the rest. He was the best fit for where the majority of the conservative movement was, which was vindictive, racist bastards more interested in sticking it to the man than anything substantial. He successfully galvanized his party and won. From a purely political standpoint, he was a success.

I think a more strongly contested primary would have been a benefit, even if it still meant Hillary was the candidate at the end of it. Maybe it would have exposed weaknesses early, rather than waiting until the general and losing. Who might have entered? I don't know. Seems like Warren and Biden for sure, maybe some others. The Democrats have a notably weak bench, which is a real problem.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 20th July 2020 at 10:32 AM.
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
Old 20th July 2020, 10:40 AM   #60
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,233
Sanders supporters who vote Trump aren't really Sanders supporters. Policy, ideology, and character are polar opposites between the two. As the OP said, it's not really that they support Sanders, it's they support whoever has the appearance of being an outsider, someone different to shake things up and they apparently don't care whether that means moving the country forward or driving it to authoritarianism.
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 20th July 2020, 10:50 AM   #61
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,673
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
E. Vote!

Hitler got into power for one simple reason - too few people voted Democrat.
Is that enough? Having voted, could they have settled down into the banality of evil with a "well, I didn't vote for him?"

You know, this is a History forum conversation. Imma go make a thread over there.
Beelzebuddy 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 20th July 2020, 10:52 AM   #62
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,834
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This thread is BS. Most likely posted by a Trump supporter or some Russian company.

There may be one in a thousand Sanders supporters who will vote for Trump.....if that.
This is exceedingly silly, and I expect Biden to thump Trump in the fall and capture the vast majority of Bernie supporters. But the idea that Trump's support among the Bros is minimal, or that it's a bunch of Republicans in Democrat clothing is risible.

On forums like this, and on Twitter, you tend to get people who are either on one side or the other. They are committed and they are committed to the whole program of their party. In this respect they are very much like the politicians and pundits.

But the voters aren't like that. They are all over the board on the issues. You might find a pro-lifer who supports affirmative action, but wants restricted immigration and increased taxes on the rich. And which way she votes in the fall will be based on whichever of those issues is the highest priority. It is pretty obvious that Trump poached on Bernie's working-class support in 2016 based on issues like trade. I would suspect that Trump can still get some support there. Not enough, however.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 10:57 AM   #63
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,226
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't know.

You criticize the Republican primary for producing Trump. Sure, it's morally abhorrent, but Trump was more popular than the rest.
But was he?

The problem is, the republican primary did not have the option to choose between "Trump" and "the rest." They had to choose between Trump and option B and option C and option D, etc. Trump was getting, what, 35% of the vote? That was more than any single individual, but was certainly not more than "the rest."

I think you mean to say, "He was more popular than the OTHERS"
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 20th July 2020, 11:05 AM   #64
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
A contested primary, including people like Biden and Warren running in 2016 makes for an interesting counterfactual.
And that worked out so well. We now have full-on post-factual, and it's certainly 'interesting'.

Quote:
You criticize the Republican primary for producing Trump.
You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing the GOP for allowing so many candidates. I merely pointed out that not limiting the field was no impediment to Trump. That no other candidate managed to get a mandate proves my point - it wouldn't have mattered how many the Democrats put forward, if they weren't 'strong' enough to beat Trump then it was just a waste of resources.

But Hillary's toast now. So who has since emerged who could have taken her place in 2016? I can't think of anybody.

The truth is, right now we don't need a 'strong' candidate, nor a populist. We need a non-controversial, middle-of-the-road likable guy (yes, it has to be a guy) who we can trust will listen to the experts and not screw things up. We need someone whom former republicans won't feel too unhappy about voting for, and whom current republicans aren't so scared of that they must vote against him. And finally, we need someone who won't polarize liberal factions like Hillary and Bernie did.
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 11:05 AM   #65
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,673
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
This is exceedingly silly, and I expect Biden to thump Trump in the fall and capture the vast majority of Bernie supporters. But the idea that Trump's support among the Bros is minimal, or that it's a bunch of Republicans in Democrat clothing is risible.
On this very board, The Big Dog (before he was sent to a forum upstate) was a big self-proclaimed Bernie supporter, and undoubtedly a Republican troll. That's one.
Beelzebuddy 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 20th July 2020, 11:22 AM   #66
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And that worked out so well. We now have full-on post-factual, and it's certainly 'interesting'.

You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing the GOP for allowing so many candidates. I merely pointed out that not limiting the field was no impediment to Trump. That no other candidate managed to get a mandate proves my point - it wouldn't have mattered how many the Democrats put forward, if they weren't 'strong' enough to beat Trump then it was just a waste of resources.

But Hillary's toast now. So who has since emerged who could have taken her place in 2016? I can't think of anybody.

The truth is, right now we don't need a 'strong' candidate, nor a populist. We need a non-controversial, middle-of-the-road likable guy (yes, it has to be a guy) who we can trust will listen to the experts and not screw things up. We need someone whom former republicans won't feel too unhappy about voting for, and whom current republicans aren't so scared of that they must vote against him. And finally, we need someone who won't polarize liberal factions like Hillary and Bernie did.
2020 isn't 2016. If the polling is at all accurate, Trump is going to get crushed, likely due in large part to his horrible bungling of the covid crisis.

I think any candidate from the party could beat him. If, by some magic, it were HRC running in a rematch, I'd bet she would win handily.

Candidate Trump, for whatever reason, was able to sell himself as a good candidate, but President Trump has revealed himself to be a disaster. It's much easier to be a bomb thrower from the outside, I suppose.

Would someone like Biden have done better in 2016? The policy would likely be very similar to that of HRC's and also fail to generate much enthusiasm, but someone like Biden or any other centrist democrat would not carry nearly the same level of hatred that came from decades of anti-Clinton propaganda.

It's hard to say. This is getting well beyond my depth of knowledge, and likely purely speculative at best.

My original point is that faithless Bernie Bros didn't cost the election. Pissed off primary partisans are part of the background noise of all elections, and Bernie Bros were not exceptional in this regard. In fact, the vileness of Trump meant that less, not more, primary voters crossed parties. Compare Bernie Bros to Hillary's PUMAs of 2008, some 24% voted for McCain.

Hillary lost for other reasons. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's not her fault, but blaming Bernie Bros then or now seems absurd.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 20th July 2020 at 11:25 AM.
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
Old 20th July 2020, 11:24 AM   #67
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Is that enough? Having voted, could they have settled down into the banality of evil with a "well, I didn't vote for him?"
In a democracy, what more can you do?

Well what you can do is not throw your vote away on a 'better' candidate who has no chance of winning, or withhold it because nobody is 'pure' enough for you. If only more Germans had done that, Hitler might not have had a chance to sneak into power.

Quote:
You know, this is a History forum conversation. Imma go make a thread over there.
Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, and use that knowledge to guide our current behavior.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy
On this very board, The Big Dog (before he was sent to a forum upstate) was a big self-proclaimed Bernie supporter, and undoubtedly a Republican troll. That's one.
A Republican troll? Really? And all this time I thought he was a 'Chicago democrat'!
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 11:49 AM   #68
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,794
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
2020 isn't 2016. If the polling is at all accurate, Trump is going to get crushed, likely due in large part to his horrible bungling of the covid crisis.
I am not so confident. I think that - barring total disaster - come November things will will be looking just good enough that republicans will still be able to convince themselves that another 4 years of Trump is survivable. That means he gets about the same number of votes as last time. Add in the usual October surprises, gerrymandering, voter suppression, Electoral College shenanigans and legal blockading, and we are going to need at least as big a margin as last time. And we need more than just the president on our side.

I am worried because given the current situation, polling should be much more in favor of Democrats. Why isn't it?

Quote:
Candidate Trump, for whatever reason, was able to sell himself as a good candidate, but President Trump has revealed himself to be a disaster.
Only to some. To those who want to turn the US into a fascist state, hasten the Apocalypse, burn the World down or just stick it to libs, he has done a wonderful job.
__________________
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 20th July 2020, 11:59 AM   #69
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,386
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think the same amount of Sanders supporters will support Trump in 2020 as they did in 2016, an insignificant amount.

This canard that unfaithful Sanders boosters cost HRC the election is part of a larger suite of rationalizations for her terrible campaign. She was a weak candidate who ran a bad campaign and lost against a once in a lifetime charlatan. I can see why there is such desperation to externalize the loss, because it's a really embarrassing way to end a long, successful political career.
This claim is ridiculous. She was an extremely strong candidate and immensely qualified. She had been vilified by the GOP for decades and it was very effective. When I've asked people why they disliked Clinton, the reasons seldom had to do with her policies but centered on conspiracy theories like Benghazi, her emails, Uranium One, Vince Foster, etc.
Stacyhs 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 20th July 2020, 12:02 PM   #70
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,386
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump also easily beat all the GOP candidates in the Republican primary, so that means they were weak too, right? And Hillary beat Bernie, so he was also weak. So who was the 'strong' candidate who would have beaten Trump in the election?

Now let's examine why Hillary was 'weak'.

1. She's a woman. Women are inherently weak. If a woman attempts to be strong she just comes off as shrill or butch - not truly strong like a man.

2. Decades of Republican smear campaigns.

3. Russians hacking her campaign and spreading propaganda on social media, in a successful attempt to swing the election in Trumps favor.

4. Being a part of the 'establishment'. Never mind that Bernie is too. And Trump.

5. Not being a populist.

Hitler was a populist. He could tap into the fear, the anger, the hate, and get the crowd baying for blood. Trump and Bernie could do it too. But not Hillary. Such a weak candidate!
I agree! And I can tell you that if HRC had been president when Covid 19 hit, she'd have handled it VERY differently than Cheeto Benito.
Stacyhs 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 20th July 2020, 12:19 PM   #71
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,226
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This claim is ridiculous. She was an extremely strong candidate and immensely qualified.
I never understand how someone who would make a good president would be a "weak candidate."

Why wouldn't you judge a candidate on the basis of what it takes to do the position?

When we hire someone where I work, we look to those characteristics for candidates that we believe (rightly or wrongly) will lead to success in their position. Why would we judge them on things that are not related to job performance?

If you are judging candidates on qualities that are not related to how they will do in their elected position, you are doing it wrong.

Then again, how else are you going to justify bigotry against women? Just assert they are "not a good candidate" and you don't have to worry about it.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 20th July 2020, 12:24 PM   #72
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,386
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I never understand how someone who would make a good president would be a "weak candidate."

Why wouldn't you judge a candidate on the basis of what it takes to do the position?

When we hire someone where I work, we look to those characteristics for candidates that we believe (rightly or wrongly) will lead to success in their position. Why would we judge them on things that are not related to job performance?

If you are judging candidates on qualities that are not related to how they will do in their elected position, you are doing it wrong.

Then again, how else are you going to justify bigotry against women? Just assert they are "not a good candidate" and you don't have to worry about it.
You're basing this on logic and not on what people mostly determine whom they vote for: emotion and partisanship.
Stacyhs 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 20th July 2020, 12:48 PM   #73
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,834
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
On this very board, The Big Dog (before he was sent to a forum upstate) was a big self-proclaimed Bernie supporter, and undoubtedly a Republican troll. That's one.
Well, if you found one, that proves they're all Republican trolls! Excellent work!
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 12:57 PM   #74
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,614
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
2020 isn't 2016. If the polling is at all accurate, Trump is going to get crushed, likely due in large part to his horrible bungling of the covid crisis.
All politics is local. Hasn't most of the impact from the "bungling" happened in Blue voter strongholds? I.e., places where Trump wasn't going to get any votes anyway? And largely places where the anti-Trump votes are redundant?
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 20th July 2020, 01:07 PM   #75
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
All politics is local. Hasn't most of the impact from the "bungling" happened in Blue voter strongholds? I.e., places where Trump wasn't going to get any votes anyway? And largely places where the anti-Trump votes are redundant?
initially, yes, but infection rates are rising in red states now too. Not all of Trump country is rural. Texas and Florida are in for a rough ride.
__________________
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
Old 20th July 2020, 01:31 PM   #76
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
initially, yes, but infection rates are rising in red states now too. Not all of Trump country is rural. Texas and Florida are in for a rough ride.
Not to mention that blue areas in states that barely went to Trump (i.e. Pennsylvania) are looking at his handling of this and disapproving strongly even if they aren't strongly affected. The Philadelphia region has kept things under decent control, but there's a lot of resentment towards Trump and certain regions that are allowing it to get out of control. It's just going to drive turnout and flip the state.
bonzombiekitty 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 20th July 2020, 02:08 PM   #77
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,673
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
In a democracy, what more can you do?

Well what you can do is not throw your vote away on a 'better' candidate who has no chance of winning, or withhold it because nobody is 'pure' enough for you. If only more Germans had done that, Hitler might not have had a chance to sneak into power.

Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, and use that knowledge to guide our current behavior.
Yeah, that's the question at hand. If voting doesn't work, what then? How should we be preparing? Historically, what would have been the optimal course of action?
Beelzebuddy 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 July 2020, 09:37 AM   #78
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,862
I supported Trump candidacy quite a bit but have no idea why Sanders delegates they stubbed Kamala Harris as I think she would be an extremely complimentary candidate. I also like the Atlanta Mayor though I don't know if she is being vetted because of her anti violence stance
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant 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 July 2020, 10:22 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,614
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yeah, that's the question at hand. If voting doesn't work, what then? How should we be preparing? Historically, what would have been the optimal course of action?
Historically, in Western countries and countries under Western rule, mass civil disobedience seems to be the most optimal course of action.

For weak despots, some form of bloodless coup seems to work, but you need to have people in a position to carry out the coup. E.g., the Revolt of the Captains in Portugal in 1973.

Other regimes in other times and places, the optimal course of action seems to be either bloody revolution, or just escape, depending on your inclinations and resources.
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 21st July 2020, 03:06 PM   #80
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,862
Wink

I think the iPhone spell checker changed Biden to Trump. Crazy White House spell checker
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant 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 01:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.