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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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

Reply
Old 3rd March 2019, 11:02 PM   #401
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Quote:
From: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...creases-220267
The top 0.1 percent would see their tax bills go up by more than $3 million, the report said, which would cut their after-tax incomes by almost half. But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families...

Now granted, that was the last election. But then, the U.S. now has billions more in debt that they have to contend with.
This was based upon the old M4A proposal presuming that it was enacted and in place in 2017. This was primarily a 2.2% increase in all ordinary income in all but the lowest income bracket between incomes of $10,065 and $49,250 and a Progressive capital gains/dividends tax starting at 17.2%.
Not an incredibly onerous bill for cradle to grave health care for people who are generally without any current health care options beyond using ERs or state/county indigent health services where they are eligible for such.
The fact that there is ANY proposed tax increase for those in the middle class will likely reduce the support for Sanders and/or his health care plan.

Yes, I do realize that people may be better off financially in the long run (i.e. the tax increases are offset by not needing to pay for health insurance.) But, anyone that says "I'm going to increase your taxes" is going to have some problems. (Even if he says "I'll tax the rich even more.)
__________________
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 3rd March 2019, 11:12 PM   #402
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You don't get it. Labeling, framing, marketing, that is the issue. My animosity is and has been about the Democrats failure to understand framing and marketing.
This sounds like 2 yesses to me?

Listen, I'm not going to try to change your mind, on this or any matter, I've read your posts long enough to understand that you come to your opinions genuinely, and advocate for them tirelessly. I can respect that, while rationally holding a completely different perspective and set of considerations.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 11:22 PM   #403
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Quote:
If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.
He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you
The problem is, Sanders once gave himself the label 'socialist'. (That wasn't the republicans, or moderate democrats calling him that. That was Sanders calling Sanders that.

Even if now he tries to use other terms, his past use of the word 'socialist' may come back and haunt him, since its a label that the American electorate just does not like.
__________________
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 3rd March 2019, 11:31 PM   #404
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The fact that there is ANY proposed tax increase for those in the middle class will likely reduce the support for Sanders and/or his health care plan.

Yes, I do realize that people may be better off financially in the long run (i.e. the tax increases are offset by not needing to pay for health insurance.) But, anyone that says "I'm going to increase your taxes" is going to have some problems. (Even if he says "I'll tax the rich even more.)
With a good living wage home life, and public daycare and no tuition pre-K to post-grad public education and development programs, we should see this investment begin to make dramatic differences in the abilities of new generations to recognize and address our issues in a more responsible and rational manner, but first, we must again give these generations public institutions that they can trust and rely upon to work for their benefit, which is the purpose of government in the first place, to protect, promote and advance the human condition, ...or is that just Progressivism's goal for government?
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 12:32 AM   #405
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,222
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
With a good living wage home life, and public daycare and no tuition pre-K to post-grad public education and development programs, we should see this investment begin to make dramatic differences in the abilities of new generations to recognize and address our issues in a more responsible and rational manner, but first, we must again give these generations public institutions that they can trust and rely upon to work for their benefit, which is the purpose of government in the first place, to protect, promote and advance the human condition, ...or is that just Progressivism's goal for government?
Noble goals. Good luck achieving them if you don't understand framing and marketing.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 05:26 AM   #406
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,590
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
That's not what the evidence says. Why are you lying? If you feel you're not lying go ahead and actually support your claim rather just claiming so.
You really didn't understand your link very will, I see. Let me provide you with a quote from your own source. Try reading it slowly: "These numbers come with a large caveat: Sanders is not running for president anymore, and he's generally been pretty quiet since ending his campaign. And if there's a recipe for making Americans like a politician these days, it's for that politician to fade into the background."


Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Please provide evidence that "moderate independent voters" did not support sanders. I gave you evidence both that independents has a preference for sanders and that independents had a much higher ratio of votes and that none of those votes went to Clinton. Please support your assertions other than your say so.
Again, your own source disagrees with your claim. "So Sanders’s strength among independent leaners isn’t driven by strength with moderate voters. In fact, as Democratic voters become more moderate, they become slightly more likely to back Clinton. In a bivariate regression, for every 1-point increase in conservatism, Democrats become about 2 percentage points more likely to support Clinton."



Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Republicans gained 2 million votes from 2012, Independents gained 5 million votes from 2012. Democrats gained nothing. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit well with you. I've shown you that Sanders could have garnered the usual democratic vote as well as democratic and independent voters that would have voted Sanders but voted independent, Trump, or not at all. You've literally provided nothing whatsoever other than your own personal naysaying to back your arguments.
You've shown nothing of the sort. What you have shown me is that Sanders is less popular the more he is under scrutiny, despite the fact that he has never faced a negative national campaign. You have shown me that Sanders was really only popular with the more liberal independent voters, but not so with Democratic, moderate, conservative or anything farther right. In fact, your own analysis is rather dooming for Sanders, if votes for Republican and Right leaning third party candidates are increasing so much more than votes for Left leaning Third Party candidates and the Democratic Party.

I'd go so far as to say that you have shown me that you want Sanders to be much more popular than he is, to the point of ignoring your own sources telling you that he isn't. If you want to convince anyone who has not already gone all in, please find sources that actually back up what you say.
wareyin 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 4th March 2019, 05:36 AM   #407
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,931
Bernies logo/slogan is
Quote:
Not me. Us.
The colors and font make it look like
Quote:
Not me U.S.
Marketing-wise it is questionable.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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 4th March 2019, 06:15 AM   #408
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
"I was only joking" doesn't excuse blackface whether we are talking about stage make-up or ill-considered racist rhetorical snark.
Except that the smiley's right there in the post. Now you're just refusing to change your interpretation.
__________________
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 4th March 2019, 06:19 AM   #409
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/cha...mance-rankings
France ranked 10th? That's odd. From what I understood their healthcare system was second to none.
__________________
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 4th March 2019, 06:46 AM   #410
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,257
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/cha...mance-rankings
The 'Health Care Outcomes' numbers are an eye-opener, Uk is at 10 for that, yet ranked 1 overall.
p0lka 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 4th March 2019, 07:07 AM   #411
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Probably not the most difficult thing for him.
Probably not. I think he's a lot more establishment than he looks, but electability is about creating an impression.
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 4th March 2019, 10:15 AM   #412
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Quote:
Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)
France ranked 10th? That's odd. From what I understood their healthcare system was second to none.
They have done this health care ranking other years as well, and in the past France was ranked higher than 10th.

Not exactly sure why their performance dropped in this last analysis. (Administrative efficiency was really poor, but then overall outcomes were not too bad.)

Here's a similar study done by the same group back in 2014... In that one, Canada is 10th of 11 countries, France is two spots higher at 9th.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...th-care-system
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
The 'Health Care Outcomes' numbers are an eye-opener, Uk is at 10 for that, yet ranked 1 overall.
Yeah but they did well for 'care process' and 'equity'.

Admittedly, its not always easy to analyze some of this stuff without more details about how they came up with their numbers. I'm assuming that the group is relatively competent at what they are doing. (And, the group is not some sort of libertarian free-market group; they actually want to bring in universal health care to the U.S.)
__________________
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 4th March 2019, 11:08 AM   #413
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that the smiley's right there in the post. Now you're just refusing to change your interpretation.
Adding smilies to racist statements do not earn those statements a free pass.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 11:22 AM   #414
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The problem is, Sanders once gave himself the label 'socialist'. (That wasn't the republicans, or moderate democrats calling him that. That was Sanders calling Sanders that.

Even if now he tries to use other terms, his past use of the word 'socialist' may come back and haunt him, since its a label that the American electorate just does not like.
I have no problem with his framing, it is honest and without need of change or correction, those who would abuse the interpretation of such are the same ones who already are convinced that anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy are communist infiltrator terrorists. Good luck on trying to get these people to try and recognize, and accept, your nuanced arguments that any of the communist socialists who make up the majority (from their perspective) of the Democratic party are preferable and dramatically different from the Democratic Socialist running within the Democratic Party.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 11:23 AM   #415
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Adding smilies to racist statements do not earn those statements a free pass.
Trakar, that's my point: your initial interpretation was WRONG. Now that I've told you that, you REFUSE to change that interpretation. Why?

The smiley was there to indicate that it was, in fact, a JOKE and not a racist statement. I was poking fun AT racists.

For ****'s sake, find some other target for your outrage mining.
__________________
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 4th March 2019, 11:27 AM   #416
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Noble goals. Good luck achieving them if you don't understand framing and marketing.
There is a difference between "not understanding," and "not agreeing with your perspective of" framing and marketing issues concerning the electorate.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 11:44 AM   #417
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Trakar, that's my point: your initial interpretation was WRONG. Now that I've told you that, you REFUSE to change that interpretation. Why?

The smiley was there to indicate that it was, in fact, a JOKE and not a racist statement. I was poking fun AT racists.

For ****'s sake, find some other target for your outrage mining.
Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism. This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 11:52 AM   #418
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism.
We either differ in terms of humour or this is just another way to avoid admitting to being wrong by you.

Quote:
This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.
I wouldn't, actually.

A lot of humour is rooted in suffering. It's the absurdity of considering humans to be worth 3/5th of other humans that I was highlighting. It's especially absurd as it's the slavers who wanted to count their slaves as kind-of people just to jack up their population numbers for representation. I find that both despicable and immensely amusing.
__________________
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 4th March 2019, 12:31 PM   #419
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism. This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.
Here's another thread that might benefit from your sermon.
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 4th March 2019, 01:30 PM   #420
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Until a finalized version of M4A legislation is worked out, we really won't be able to say much about any of the unknown details. We know that such systems are possible and feasible, whether or not it will be possible to successfully pass and enact such legislation will largely depend upon several of these currently unknown details.


We can probably get the best rough idea of what Sanders himself would like the legislation to look like, by looking at what he has said, and the legislation he has already sponsored, but even this is likely only a general approximation of what the final sausage will look like.


I'd expect the M4A legislation to take the general form of the 2017 Senate bill he sponsored entitled Medicare for All

Highlights:
(current cost of private Health Care in US = approx. $3.5T/year)

Costs of the Sanders M4A bill have been estimated at between $1.38T and a bit more than $2.5T/year.
M4A funding is through a series of mechanisms, a 6.2 percent charge on employers (corporate income tax + a reduction in their payroll tax matching expenses), a 2.2 percent fee on most families (personal income tax + a reduction in their other payroll taxes and an elimination of health insurance premiums), increased marginal tax rates for incomes $250,000 and higher (highest marginal rate at 52%), increased taxes on capital gains (taxation at regular income tax rates, increased estate marginal tax rate on high income brackets (estates over 1 Billion $ would be looking at a 70% marginal tax rate on everything over $1B).

Just spit-balling, it looks like (If we accept the accuracy of these numbers) M4A would both cover everyone and do so $1-2T/year more cheaply than our current private insurance system does for a smaller population, and the revenue offsets outlined would cover most all of the expense burden of shifting from private pay to federal pay. Reality is rarely so clear and concise, however, so I'm sure there are still some issues that won't match-up so neatly, such is to be expected. These types of issues probably aren't deal-breakers but they undoubtedly will require more effort to iron out all the wrinkles.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 4th March 2019 at 01:40 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:14 PM   #421
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,222
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
There is a difference between "not understanding," and "not agreeing with your perspective of" framing and marketing issues concerning the electorate.
Those are the same blinders Sanders wears.

Bloomberg: U.S. Voters Don’t Want Socialist or Very Old President: Poll
Quote:
Americans are least favorable toward a presidential candidate who’s a socialist or one who’s older than 75, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that said President Donald Trump’s approval rating ticked up in the past month.

Only 25 percent of respondents ranked “socialist” as a desirable trait for a candidate. ...

Republicans in the White House, Congress and in the media have made “socialism” a significant point of attack as the election draws closer, ripping proposals for expanded access to Medicare, the so-called Green New Deal, and other Democratic priorities. ...

The NBC/WSJ poll of 900 adults was conducted Feb. 24-27 and had an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. The survey also measured 720 registered voters including primary voters from both parties with higher margins of error.
The GND is already stumbling over marketing. Like Clinton's intelligent complex policy plans, voters don't read them. That makes the voter susceptible to negative sound bites against the candidate or policies. The GOP is already marketing heavily, painting the GND as "central planning" "like the old Soviet Union" what "Chavez implemented in Venezuela". Unless the Democrats do a better job marketing the specifics of the GND, the public will associate Democrats like Sanders as pushing the policies of communism.


What evidence do you have the majority of the voting public are attracted to 'socialism'? Or don't see it as negative?

Current polls only looking at Democratic Primary comparisons aren't valid unless they also include a generic candidate because most of the new candidates haven't yet marketed their brands.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 4th March 2019 at 02:18 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 02:17 PM   #422
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,969
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism. This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.
Do you feel this also applies to black comedians who do sarcastic parodies of racism?
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 4th March 2019, 02:31 PM   #423
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Until a finalized version of M4A legislation is worked out, we really won't be able to say much about any of the unknown details.
So the details of how his 'medicare 4 all' legislation will work are not known, yet people are getting almost giddy with the thought of it.

Plus, Sanders has been a politician for decades. He had the 2016 election, plus the last 2 years to come up with a plan.

Quote:
We know that such systems are possible and feasible, whether or not it will be possible to successfully pass and enact such legislation will largely depend upon several of these currently unknown details.
And don't forget... you also don't know the ability of the government to defend such legislation in the courts.

Sanders wants to enact some sort of single payer/all government system. When Obamacare went to the supreme court (regarding the individual mandate), it barely survived the court challenge. What Sanders wants to do is much more far reaching, and there is now Drunky McRapeface on the supreme court, further tilting the court to the right. Even if Sanders manages to 1) come up with an actual plan, 2) get congress to pass his plan, 3) get it actually implemented, it may all be for nothing in a few years once the supreme court rules on it.

[quote]We can probably get the best rough idea of what Sanders himself would like the legislation to look like, by looking at what he has said, and the legislation he has already sponsored, but even this is likely only a general approximation of what the final sausage will look like.

Quote:
I'd expect the M4A legislation to take the general form of the 2017 Senate bill he sponsored entitled Medicare for All
The 2017 senate bill he sponsored appears to be substantially different than what he is proposing this time (at least from my non-legal expertise).

Section 303 of the bill seems to allow people to continue to use private insurance if they so choose.

Yet earlier this year, Sanders seemed to indicate that such private insurance would be banned.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019...harris-sanders

Quote:
Highlights:
(current cost of private Health Care in US = approx. $3.5T/year)

Costs of the Sanders M4A bill have been estimated at between $1.38T and a bit more than $2.5T/year.
Earier on you have suggested that the details of Sanders Medicare plan have not been finalized, yet now you're claiming that we can actually figure out how much it would cost. There seems to be some contradiction there.

And here's something you might want to think about... where exactly would those cost savings come from?

Yes, the U.S. health care system is extremely expensive. There are several reasons for that (so you can't assume going to "single payer" will fix all those problems, or if they do fix the problems, won't cause other problems.)

- Medical experts in the U.S. (e.g. doctors) often earn higher salaries than in other countries. How are you going to fix that? Make all medical people 'government employees'? Limit the amount they can charge? Either of those options may have the side effect of reducing available staff, causing an increase in waiting times

- Over-capacity, which means that some infrastructure is not fully utilized. It drives up costs, but it also means faster response time. Get rid of the extra infrastructure and wait lists may appear

- Medical lawsuits (which drives up insurance costs), and those have the secondary impact of forcing the doctors to order multiple tests (in order to avoid those lawsuits). Are you going to do anything to limit malpractice claims? What if a doctor actually does make a mistake?

- Administration overhead... Ok, this is possibly one area where single payer might make a difference. (Although not as much of a difference as you might think, since even in an all public system you need staff to handle the paperwork for claims.)

Unless you get in there and tackle those issues, you may find that health care costs don't really drop all that much, and if you DO try to address some of those issues, you may find that things like health care responsiveness suffer as a result.

And here's one more question you should ask yourself:

Lets say he gets elected in 2020. Sanders wants a "single payer/government covers everything/no private insurance" system. Lets say he manages to get it past congress, gets it implemented, and keeps it from getting overturned in the courts... You've reached nirvana, with your "free" health care covering everyone.

Eventually the Republicans will end up back in power (either winning the presidency or congress, or both). Do you really want the republicans (the party filled with anti-abortionists, anti-science creationists/global warming deniers, and tea partiers) to have that much control over your health? The minute they gain power, they may decide to cut funding specifically for abortion. Or they may decide that the government has more important things to spend the money on, and needs to cut health care funding in order to spend more on the military. Without the private options that Sanders seems keen to ban, you'll be stuck.

And before you scoff at that, that same thing happened here in Canada (the place you seem to think is some sort of health care paradise). Back in 90s, the LIBERAL Prime Minister cut health care funding (partly to tackle the deficit, but largely to fund various pork-barrel projects). And that was a left-of-center party cutting spending. Who knows what the republican party would do in the same situation.
__________________
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 6th March 2019, 02:27 PM   #424
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Plus, Sanders has been a politician for decades. He had the 2016 election, plus the last 2 years to come up with a plan.
He has had a very solid, if general, plan for the systems he wants to transform, and this is an acceptable state for most major public policies, ahead of the creation of a legislatable, majority-supported plan to actually expect to pass into law. Until there is a will for a majority of law-makers to actually get down to the effort of crafting the details we won't know what all will be required to get to a congressional voting majority as these members haven't yet determined exactly what they want and need to be able to publicly vote for any given piece of legislation. You have to know what individual legislators are demanding before you can craft acceptable legislation for them to vote for. Increasingly the functional details of the proposed legislation isn't as important as the question of how will this legislation and its reasonably likely impacts will be perceived by my campaign sponsors and voters (its a big help if your campaign sponsors and voters are equal sets, thus the big push to make sure that your sponsors are also your voters and that you don't have any sponsors who can't vote for, or against, you directly - e.g. corporations, PACs, or Super-PACs). Until we get to the point where there is as high a level of support for the legislation as there seems to be among the electorate, or at the least, as strong as would be needed to pass and defend the potential legislation, most such legislative proposals are the way the legislators use more to judge the support, concerns, and reservations of their congressional colleagues rather than actual attempts to enact a specific piece of legislation. This is a big part of the sausage-making recipe.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Sanders wants to enact some sort of single payer/all government system. When Obamacare went to the supreme court (regarding the individual mandate), it barely survived the court challenge.
That is more the result of trying to create a system of corporate welfare for Health companies (for-profit insurance, but largely pharma, hospitals, testing facilities and most importantly physicians who order a lot more tests and procedures than they need to. This, at best, is a constitutionally dubious public policy issue involving citizens being forced to pay a private, for-profit, company in order to exercise a basic human right to get essential health care.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The 2017 senate bill he sponsored appears to be substantially different than what he is proposing this time (at least from my non-legal expertise).

Section 303 of the bill seems to allow people to continue to use private insurance if they so choose.

Yet earlier this year, Sanders seemed to indicate that such private insurance would be banned.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019...harris-sanders
Before we get into discussing what private insurance would look like under the type of plan Sanders has proposed and discussed, perhaps you could point out where in the linked piece Sanders claims what you assert? The only statement I see in your linked piece is this:

Quote:
The Sanders plan permits supplemental private insurance, the type that covers things that the public system doesn’t. But because the public insurance plan pretty much covers everything, it’s difficult to see what role it would play.
Personally, I don't see how this equates to "Sanders seemed to indicate that such private insurance would be banned."

There will undoubtedly differences in the types of health insurance which would be economically viable under the types of eM4A that Sanders has envisioned and we can talk more about this if you would like, but there is a big difference between banning something and changing the basic structure of the health care delivery system so that private, for profit health care insurance is financial inviable (more expensive primarily, with more limited benefits). Boutique health resort systems is representative of the types of terms I've heard discussed in reference to private for profit, health insurance's role in an enhanced M4A setting.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And here's something you might want to think about... where exactly would those cost savings come from?
Actually, there is quite a bit already out about this issue, and most of it is on pretty firm ground, economically. There are several different converging pathways for this. Many of them already been mentioned in this thread. The most oft discussed issue (which is actually one of the smaller expenses) revolve around administrative fees and expenses involved with having multiple insurance coverages and systems and their independently negotiated contracts with different care providers. One of the largest sources of cost savings is in addressing Pharma's costs, and nudging it for first place are physician/specialist and Hospital/clinic fees.

Again there are ways to address these, some involve addressing the costs of professional education and training (for instance, free-tuition at public universities and loan forgiveness/payback and benefits if Graduates sign-up to work multi-year contracts for designated focus areas/providers that would go a long way toward eliminating the pressure young physicians feel leaving med school with a mountain of debt, very little experience in their field and very little job security in an increasingly expensive world to live in). Likewise, Tort and regulatory reform are likely a necessary part of reducing hospital, clinic, and even a part of reducing Pharma, costs and fees as well as greatly simplifying the billing systems and their costs. We don't need to be woke to recognize and address the issues which have demanded addressment for decades now, but addressing them to help make eM4A which is already a cheaper proposal per capita, more efficient, and a more effective alternative to what we have currently with regard to health care delivery speaks for itself. But you are correct keeping these issues in mind will also make continue to make eM4A more politically viable and more societally embraced system, which is why many medical and health professionals have been in favor of such systems and actively working on these systems and focused on these issues for a long time now.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes, the U.S. health care system is extremely expensive. There are several reasons for that (so you can't assume going to "single payer" will fix all those problems, or if they do fix the problems, won't cause other problems.)
eM4A isn't a solution to the reasons the U.S. health care system is so inefficient, ineffective and ridiculously overpriced. eM4A is a more efficient, cost-effective means of providing guaranteed health care services to everyone in U.S. lands and territories. Even without addressing the cost issues involved in current U.S. health care, eM4A is still a better alternative to the current system of hyper-expensive partial care for some and the overburdening expenses of eating those costs (and risks) of treating those without insurance or PCPs in ERs, not to mention the lost potential in premature deaths and unnecessary chronic debilitating disease/injury resulting from the lack of access to basic health services.

Current average U.S. citizens health care expenses are right around $10K/yr., estimates put mid next-decade expenses (given current trends) at around $15K/yr.. Even the Libertarian Mercatus Institute's estimates of the Sanders M4A program seem to indicate that the costs of eM4A health care would be an averaged $10K/year ($32.6T/population size/period = est. average annual cost), or roughly $5K/yr less than what we would be paying for health care without eM4A. Most individuals would likely very much appreciate not only a $5K/yr savings in their pocket plus full coverage health care access benefits without co-pays! Most people notice net changes much more than rearrangements of debits and credits to individual payroll tax categories and corporate benefit accounts. As I recall, the additional taxation to help cover the expenses of eM4A had every working individual and business (except for the two lowest individual income brackets) paying some additional marginal amount progressively on their income taxes, it starts out at 2.5% and I want to say there was also some adjustment to all of the marginal rate categories as well which effectively neutralized or minimized the actual change in taxes owed by most people earning under $250K/yr. I think I posted a reference link on this a few days ago but that may have been elsewhere
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 03:05 PM   #425
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Do you feel this also applies to black comedians who do sarcastic parodies of racism?
To be honest, I don't know.
If racism in the U.S. were merely the issue of different people always fearing and denigrating the "other," type of issue, then I probably wouldn't have as strong feelings about the issue. Unfortunately, I don't see compelling evidence that this is the primary driver of most U.S. racism, currently or historically. Additionally, I am seeing a lot of people that I've known for a long time starting to reveal some very concerning perspectives, so perhaps I have become a bit more sensitive to high-pitched noises, than I used to be.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 03:41 PM   #426
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,513
Looks like the Democratic Party is taking its charter and bilaws more seriously

Apparently - part of the Democratic Candidate loyalty oath saying that the candidate must:

Quote:
"...be a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings, and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare, and success of the Democratic Party of the United States who subscribes to the substance, intent, and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith.
Senator Sanders submitted his signed copy yesterday.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 6th March 2019 at 03:44 PM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2019, 11:05 PM   #427
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,765
So a Bernie supporter decided that the real culprit behind the New Zealand massacre was Chelsea Clinton. She confronted her for daring to show up at a vigil.


Yet more evidence that the entire Bernie movement is toxic and should be marginalized.


https://twitter.com/_Jordan_J_/statu...30904779673600
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 11:35 AM   #428
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
So a Bernie supporter decided that the real culprit behind the New Zealand massacre was Chelsea Clinton. She confronted her for daring to show up at a vigil.


Yet more evidence that the entire Bernie movement is toxic and should be marginalized.


https://twitter.com/_Jordan_J_/statu...30904779673600

are you parodying someone in these forums, Travis?
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 16th March 2019, 06:30 PM   #429
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,765
Originally Posted by Venom View Post

are you parodying someone in these forums, Travis?
I am genuinely upset at the ridiculous harassment Chelsea received and even worse Berners are defending this all over Twitter saying they have a right to attack anyone named Clinton.


But I am curious as to who I am suspected of parodying......I have a few guesses.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 07:06 PM   #430
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I am genuinely upset at the ridiculous harassment Chelsea received and even worse Berners are defending this all over Twitter saying they have a right to attack anyone named Clinton.
What does Bernie Sanders think about it?
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 16th March 2019, 10:12 PM   #431
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
So a Bernie supporter decided that the real culprit behind the New Zealand massacre was Chelsea Clinton. She confronted her for daring to show up at a vigil.


Yet more evidence that the entire Bernie movement is toxic and should be marginalized.


https://twitter.com/_Jordan_J_/statu...30904779673600
I like how you pretend to hate the current state of US politics and that you want change, but at the same time you are opposed to the people who are actually trying to change things.

It's obvious that you are rooting for the status quo, you want more of the same. How on earth do you think that is going to make things better?
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2019, 10:55 PM   #432
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,222
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I like how you pretend to hate the current state of US politics and that you want change, but at the same time you are opposed to the people who are actually trying to change things.

It's obvious that you are rooting for the status quo, you want more of the same. How on earth do you think that is going to make things better?
It's a false dichotomy when supporters insist if you aren't for candidate X you must not be for change.

And I fail to see how publicly badmouthing Chelsea Clinton moves any cause ahead.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2019, 12:09 AM   #433
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I like how you pretend to hate the current state of US politics and that you want change, but at the same time you are opposed to the people who are actually trying to change things.

It's obvious that you are rooting for the status quo, you want more of the same. How on earth do you think that is going to make things better?
Well that's certainly not what I got from what he said.

He's just disgruntled with some Sanders fans' hyperbolic attacks. I think it's irrational to abandon support of politician based on the actions of his supporters alone, but don't read much more than that into Travis' comment.
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 17th March 2019, 01:21 AM   #434
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It's a false dichotomy when supporters insist if you aren't for candidate X you must not be for change.

And I fail to see how publicly badmouthing Chelsea Clinton moves any cause ahead.
Yes, poor little Chelsea Clinton. How dare anyone critize her.
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2019, 01:23 AM   #435
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Well that's certainly not what I got from what he said.

He's just disgruntled with some Sanders fans' hyperbolic attacks. I think it's irrational to abandon support of politician based on the actions of his supporters alone, but don't read much more than that into Travis' comment.
At this point, I think it would be interesting to hear what Travis really thinks of Bernie Sanders and his policies. Not his fans, but what Sanders is actually proposing.

@Travis? Care to enlighten us?
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.

Last edited by Lambchops; 17th March 2019 at 01:26 AM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2019, 03:33 AM   #436
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,765
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I like how you pretend to hate the current state of US politics and that you want change, but at the same time you are opposed to the people who are actually trying to change things.

It's obvious that you are rooting for the status quo, you want more of the same. How on earth do you think that is going to make things better?
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
At this point, I think it would be interesting to hear what Travis really thinks of Bernie Sanders and his policies. Not his fans, but what Sanders is actually proposing.

@Travis? Care to enlighten us?

Sure. I fail to see how his proposals are appreciably different from what Harris, Warren, or Yang are proposing. Bernie is not the only one running with a fairly large list of proposals to try and eliminate inequity. In fact he is somewhat too focused on economics when others, like Harris, are proposing sweeping criminal justice along with huge changes in the way schools are funded/organized to try and eliminate the disadvantages so many marginalized communities experience and canceling student debt which has hindered an entire generation of recent graduates.


In fact it is incredibly specious to say any of the Democratic candidates don't want to change things. Even old Biden would take climate change seriously which would be better than the current situation where the EPA barely acknowledges that anyone believes in it.


In fact no one really wants to maintain the status quo. The Democrats want to move forward with expanding health care coverage though their plans on how to do this vary. They want to do something about climate change though their plans vary. They want to do something about rising economic inequity though their plans, again, differ.


Against that we have the current GOP who want to eliminate environmental regulations, who want to eliminate the minimum wage, who want to eliminate public education, who want to eliminate child labor laws, who want to eliminate public health care, who want to make it legal to discriminate against the LGBT community, who want to make Protestant Christianity a mandatory state religion, who want to privatize the prison system turning increased incarceration into a money maker.


I mean America is all sorts of messed up right now because no one wants to keep things the same, one party wants to make things better and the other wants to turn it into a soul crushing dystopian authoritarian miasma of awful.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2019, 09:31 AM   #437
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,689
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Yes, poor little Chelsea Clinton. How dare anyone critize her.
Generally criticism involves making some sort of point, though.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 17th March 2019, 10:12 AM   #438
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Generally criticism involves making some sort of point, though.
I thought there was a pretty straightforward point. Chelsea Clinton was publicly critical of Representative Omar's criticism of the Israeli lobby in the US.

Clinton's criticism contributes to an anti-Muslim climate which inspires and energizes killers like this guy.

Clinton is participating in a culture of hate that leads to death.

That's the point of the criticism of Chelsea Clinton that we're talking about here. Personally, I think it's a pretty weak criticism. But it is in fact a pointful criticism.
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 17th March 2019, 10:27 AM   #439
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,689
It's really hard to see how this:

https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/s...73371823366145

Leads to this:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...18929385578497

Then again, it could be much like homeopathy in that the more we dilute the initial antiracist sentiment, the more potent a racist result we achieve.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 17th March 2019, 10:34 AM   #440
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,222
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Yes, poor little Chelsea Clinton. How dare anyone critize her.


What did she do?

Never mind.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 02:42 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.