Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Vader
What makes you think Bernie is going to win a state like Wisconsin where working people and blue collared are key.
because bernie's entire pitch is to working class people. He will get them better education, better healthcare. They are the main part of his base.
Bernie is the WORST candidate to turn the votes against Trump.
that is kind of the point though. None of the democratic candidates are going to convince trump's base to turn on him. They are essentially cultists. Defeating trump isn't about convincing republicans or the somewhat mythical "moderate voters". It is about convincing people who don't usually turn out to vote at all to come vote. And sanders is the only candidate that can do that.
He is extremely on the left and people on his own party have ridiculed him.
his own party is run by corporatists who are, in many ways, no different than the republicans. They hate him because he is a direct threat to their corruption and graft.
He fails to appeal to Conservatives and won't switch states.
again, it isn't about convincing republicans. It is about convincing non voters.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like what was Hillary supposed to do with the 4 million extra votes she got in California to win that state?Those extra votes plus a dollar can get you a sausage McBiscuit.
I totally agree. She and the other corportists in the democratic establishment stopped trying to win over working class voters. They decided to become indistinguishable from republicans on economic policy but just engage in identity politics and be a bit less racist. They were then shocked that was not a winning electoral strategy.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The polling said Hillery was going to win too.
no. the polling said she would win the popular vote. Which she did, by millions of votes. However she ran a bad campaign and ignored important states and working people. that is not a mistake Bernie would make.
A belligerent guy who doesn't care about his own safety is great to have when you want to shout a f-you! to power, but most people, not even the ones cheering as he screams f-you! are comfortable with him being in charge, being the boss.
you realize you are describing trump and not bernie, right?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It is amazing that an adult American, living in America, who has lived in America most or all of his life, could think that Sanders could win a National Election.
lol why would you think he can't? The polling says he can and will.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure why you were linking this for me. Bernie won New Hampshire. He absolutely dominated Nevada. Unless Biden can beat his polls in South Carolina (to show that he is still relevant), Bernie is going to sweep super tuesday and the race will be decided.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Still have not proven that he is a liar. Never thought people could never change their mind but guess you think so.
lol other than electing him president there is literally no way to prove he is lying. There is also no way to prove he is telling the truth. The available evidence says that he is lying though. So why would anyone choose to believe him?
My burden was not to show science is a left or right thing it was to show the left care more about climate change than the right. Did you miss that or are you mis-characterizing me on purpose? Here is what I said and I quote:
You implied that Bloomberg's belief in climate change was an issue he is "left" on. Since science is not a left or right wing belief, this is simply untrue. Believing in science is not a left wing policy position.
So your telling me someone before they understand they did wrong should be apologetic for something they don't even know is wrong?
no, i'm telling you he has not acknowledged what he did was wrong. He has said that he is sorry for how it turned out. He isn't sorry for doing it. He isn't sorry for violating people's constitutional rights. This is the weakest apology possible. And the reason it is so weak is because he still thinks stop and frisk was a great idea. And he was making that case fairly recently.
Do you have anything other than your word supporting this? As in a data point showing a person can't simply changing without intentionally misleading people?
You are asking me to difinitively prove something inside Bloombergs head. That us obviously not a fair request. We know he advocated right wing positions for decades. Until very recently, he was still advocating them. Then he decided that he wanted to be president and announced he believes the exact opposite on a dozen issues. Why would anyone believe that? He has a proven track record showing the things he believes. Other than his pinky promise that he isn't still a right wing oligarch, we have no reason to think he isn't.
I just showed you a link earlier that he is for the minimum wage. Is he for the minimum wage currently?
lol i showed you what he has believed his whole life. You showed me a campaign promise that is the exact opposite of what he has believed his whole life. Why do you think that the campaign promise is his real beliefs?
Most of my life I was a theist then I wasn't. Are you calling me a liar because you are certainly calling Bloomberg a liar for the exact same thing?
you changed your mind on 1 issue, probably after years of reflection on that issue. Bloomberg is claiming he has changed him mind on like a dozen issues and he did it at the exact moment he decided he wanted to be president. The timing, the number of issues he has swung on, and the fact that he has something to gain by saying he now believes this are all factors that should suggest that he is lying. Other than his word, there is no evidence to support what he says. His entire record says the opposite.
No proof that he will enact stop and frisk when he could be elected nor would he ban soft drinks? Are you being hyperbolic because I certainly didn't hear him say he wanted to ban soft drinks or still support stop and frisk?
i'm not suggesting those specific policies are things he would try to enact. But it shows what kind of man he is. He is willing to take people's rights, to violate the constitution to get what he thinks is right. A man who is willing to knowingly engage in and defend wildly racist government harassment is not a man who should be trusted with power.
To prove what? Are you saying he is doing it for the fun of it?
No, i'm saying he is doing it to try to protect his money. Bloomberg profits massively off of the broken economic and political system as it exists today. If Biden looked like he was going to win, he never would have gotten into the race. He is running to try to stop a progressive candidate from winning. He is trying to protect his wealth, power and influence.
Separate argument, I just want to know how Bloomberg is right wing.
opposing minimum wage, he supported the war in Iraq, he is a corporatist (ie supports the government giving handouts to corporations)
But again, I'm obviously not going to convince you he is right wing. I have shown multiple ways he is and you just keep repeating yourself that because despite his decades of right wing views, he now says he doesn't believe those things so this somehow means that he isn't.
So lets come at it from a different direction. Much of the county sees that he is right wing whether or not you do. Much of the country sees him as a misogynist, a racist and an oligarch. If he is the nominee, progressives will not show up to vote for someone they perceive to be a right wing oligarch. So why would picking him as the nominee be a good thing? He will get crushed by trump.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
But all of the discussion of precisely why bloomberg is right wing aside, he is absolutely not the best choice to win. He would almost certainly lose to trump. For every republican he could get to vote for him, 10 or 20 democrats or independents would stay home.
The options at this point are Sanders is the best bet to beat trump. There is an argument to be made that Biden could win, but it seems highly unlikely to me. I think he would collapse in the general election.
I don't see anyone else with a path to beating trump.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The link I gave says he is pro it. Guess he changed his mind. Wow
lol he has opposed something his whole life, then suddenly decided he wanted to be president and now he believes the exact opposite. why are you choosing to believe obvious lies?
Literally 18% of Republicans don't even think it is a problem as in only 18% worry "a great deal" about climate change.
ok, you just proved that there are millions of republicans who worry "a great deal" about climate change. a) that kind of disproves your point that the right doesn't believe in it. b) you have yet to show how believing in science is in any way a result of being right or left wing.
So people apologizing and changing their mind is lying? It doesn't matter if it was in a 6 months span or he was defending it back then (which you haven't given that evidence), it matters if he has changed his mind, if you listened to the debate he admits fault.
It very much does matter when they apologized and how long they advocated for the thing they are apologizing for. He has fought for over a decade for racist policies. It took a court order to make him even slow down on that racist policy. He continued defending it long after he left office. He then suddenly did a complete conversion on the issue (along with at least a dozen other issues) the moment he decided he wanted to run for president. It isn't even a good attempt to hide the lie. I don't understand why anyone would believe him.
also, he didn't apologize for the policy. He apologized for "how it turned out". He designed a policy to target minorities, harass them, and violate their constitutional rights. It isn't "how it turned out" that is the main issue. It is that anyone would support such a policy in the 1st place. He has not apologized for that.
Are you telling me he can't change his mind in a few years?
I'm telling you that if someone has strongly advocated for a series of beliefs for decades, then suddenly changes a whole bunch of them all at once when he decides to run for president, that is a very strong sign that he hasn't changed his mind. He is just saying whatever he has to in order to win an election. That would be a lie.
A decade is a long time and more than enough time to change.
I'm not saying he believed these things a decade ago. I am saying he has believed these things for decades. He has been giving speeches advocating right wing positions the whole time. He only changed those positions in order to run for president.
He opposed minimum wage laws. That is a fact. He supported authoritarian tough on crimes laws and still did until very recently that is a fact.Is he now?
To which one? I already showed you a clip off him saying he has never believed in raising the minimum wage. He had to be told by a court that his stop and frisk policies were unconstitutional before he would even consider slowing it down. He also fought against monitors being sent to see how bad stop and frisk was.
Tell me why can't he change his mind and admit to his faults?
of course people can change their mind. But you don't hold the same beliefs for decades, then have a huge epiphany the minute you decide you want to be president and decide you have been wrong your entire life. However, a politician telling people he supports whatever they want to hear in order to get elected happens all the time. There is no reason to believe he is telling the truth.
What makes a Democrat and how long do they have to be one to be considered one and also does an official DNC body accept your definition?
I would argue that if you are an authoritarian, you are not a democrat. From stop and frisk to banning soft drinks and lots of other issues, he loves the idea of having the power to order people to do what he wants. I even saw a video of him musing about how he would love to fire half the teachers and double class sizes.
This is conspiracy nonsense. Unless you can back up that Bloomberg wants the presidency as a financial investment. I'll await for your conspiracy to be met with evidence if not I'll always call what you are saying here conspiratorial.
he is a billionaire trying to buy an election. Why do you think he is running?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
he has a handful of social issues he goes left on. But the basically everything else about him is right wing and authoritarian.Name them.
He opposed raising the minimum wage. He opposed healthcare reform (the ACA), he was in favor of authoritarian "tough on crime" laws such as stop and frisk, he supported redlining and even said that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by cracking down on redlining rather than the greed of wall street.
Right wingers deny climate change, left wingers don't.
There are lots of people on the right who acknowledge climate change. I agree there is more denial on the right than on the left. But that is not a political ideal that can be associated with right or left.
Apologizing is an admittance of fault. People I think do this in order to imply they won't do it again.
true, and if he had apologized when he was mayor, or in the aftermath of being mayor then that would be fair. But he didn't. He defended it for years and years. As recently as about 6 months before the primary race started he was defending it. The fact that he did a 180 change the moment he decided to be president should tell you he is lying. He doesn't think stop and frisk was a mistake, but he knows that he can't say that any more.
"I, for example, am not in favor, have never been in favor of raising the minimum wage,"I never knew Bloomberg could tell the future oh wait he can't so he can change his mind thus making this statement null.
What do you mean? He says that he is not, and has never been, in favor of raising the minimum wage. He said that just a few years ago. Now that he wants to pretend he's actually a democrat he is saying the exact opposite. This is evidence that this part of his platform (along with alot of it) is a lie.
Do you even watch the video and how uncharitable are you?
to bloomberg? extremely. He is an authoritarian, right wing billionaire who is trying to buy the nomination just to protect his own money.
Him being liar requires proof and make it about the ACA if you can. No a video 10 years ago doesn't count because he has changed his mind that is if I take your uncharitable view that he says there are issues but he doesn't want to fix them. I don't think you can comprehend someone literally changing their mind.
why do you choose to believe him? He has been right wing and opposed progressive policy for decades. Now he is saying the exact opposite of what he has proven he believes and you are choosing to believe him. I see no evidence that what he says now is true.
No you haven't. I have literally rebutted all your claims
no you haven't. He opposed minimum wage laws. That is a fact. He supported authoritarian tough on crimes laws and still did until very recently that is a fact.
You still went on your diatribes and know you are moving the goalposts that he was a right winger for a long time? I don't care about someone's past unless it is relevant to today.
how is a politician's record not relevant to today? He has spent decades showing he believes in right wing principles. Now he suddenly claims he believes the opposite of everything he has done. His past shows that he is lying.
Given everything you have given is literally null since Bloomberg has changed his mind it doesn't count now you resorted in using the past instead of the recent present as if that matters?
wow, you really are choosing to ignore decades of his record (including things he said very recently) and just believe whatever he says now? Just because a right wing politician claims to be a democrat does not make him one.
your argument appears to boil down to "well he was right wing 5 years ago, but he says he isn't now". Choosing to believe a politician in his late 70's has changed massively from the beliefs he has held for decades is just sad. He is lying to you to try to protect his money and power.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
he has a handful of social issues he goes left on. But the basically everything else about him is right wing and authoritarian.His social issues are more left than right.
His stance on climate change is left.
There is no such thing as left or right wing about climate change. There are those who acknowledge science and those who don't. That is not a political spectrum.
No proof he will carry on using policies like stop and frisk.
He was defending stop and frisk until the moment he decided to run for president. Even now, he has "apologized" for how it turned out, but has not acknowledged that the entire policy was designed to be racist and he wholeheartedly embraced that.
Literally wants a minimum wage but okay.
of course, because on this issue, like most others, he is way too right wing to possibly be considered for the democratic nomination. So he has had to pretend to be democrat and copy other people's platform. Here is him advocating against raising the minimum wage 5 years ago. The exact quote is:
"I, for example, am not in favor, have never been in favor of raising the minimum wage,"
Literally wants an improved ACA. Right wingers don't even want an ACA and he wants an improved version.
again, he says that now. He argued against the ACA. Here is a speech he gave where he called the ACA "a disgrace". Timestamp 29:20.
He didn't want the ACA. But he has to pretend like he likes it now because to say otherwise would be political suicide.
Literally everything you bought up is null. Please stick to the topic instead on your typical diatribes. Spare me this one time please. Focus on my points say how they are right wing don't give me your feelings and stories. I beg you.
I've already pointed to multiple areas where he is right wing. Other than a handful of social issues, he has been right wing for a long time.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is Bloomberg right wing?
Other than a handful of social issues, how is he not? He is against any meaningful regulations of corporations, he fought for racist "tough on crime" laws, he lobbied hard against healthcare reform, he doesn't believe in raising the minimum wage etc.
Correction: Trump is barely a billionaire, Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire.
my sentence was "their options would be a misogynist, right wing billionaire, or a different misogynist, right wing, billionaire". this is an accurate statement.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Do you have any idea, how fuckin hard it is to flip an openly conservative actor in Hollywood?
why would one really old, kind of crazy, actor be relevant? Bloomberg is able to buy endorsements from lots of people.
Bottom line, Bloomberg has absolutely no chance of winning a general election. Trump would eat him alive and cruise to an easy re-election. Bloomberg being the nominee would get a huge chunk of the democratic base to stay home because their options would be a misogynist, right wing billionaire, or a different misogynist, right wing, billionaire. But Bloomberg is probably fine with that. Bloomberg entered the race for 1 reason, to stop Sanders. He wants to protect his own interests.
It is time for the democratic establishment to start practicing what they preach. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is 1 stand out candidate and the party needs to start to unify behind him. If they (and I assume they will) refuse to do that, they are only further proving that the "party unity" they have been preaching doesn't mean a thing to them. They have been lying and scheming this whole time to hold onto power. And they would rather lose to trump than win with Bernie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
they vote for ideas(ideas are related to who could win as well). If people with some roughly similar group of ideas are doing worse to another group of ideas, there is likely more to it than just winning.
the flaw in your thinking is that you believe that people group those ideas. IE you seem to think that if people support medicare for all and a living wage that makes them a progressive and they therefore describe them self as a progressive. People don't tend to do that. They might support those progressive ideas but really like joe biden because he was Obama's VP (or some other random reason). So saying that because they support joe biden they are a "moderate" or that a "moderate" is their ideal candidate is wrong.
This poll from 2019 says that 40% of Democrats care about beating Donald Trump as their priority. 56% said it was most important that the candidate aligned with their views. You can't shirk the electability portion, but it still doesn't outweigh the importance of ideals.
I agree. And Sanders is, by a wide margin, the most electable of the candidates. So that stat only reinforces that people should vote for sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
All we can know at the moment is that moderates have more support than progressives based on caucus results.
I suppose. If you group all the "moderate" candidates together then you would get a higher number than if you grouped the "progressive" candidates. But this is a misreading of the electorate. It's like saying if you group all the white candidates together you get more than the black candidates. Or if you group the people with a certain color of hair etc. That isn't how most people are deciding on what candidate to support. So trying to group them that way is misleading.
In this poll, it says that 24% of Americans would vote for a socialist for elected office vs 76% that wouldn't
that poll is from 2 years ago. AOC and Sanders have been steadily growing in popularity since then. That poll is no longer relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But it still shows that the majority of first choices are people who aren’t progressive. My point is that their ideal candidate is a moderate.
It doesn't show that at all. Alot of people are voting on "electability", which just means they are guessing what other people want rather than voting on what they want. Outlets like MSNBC and CNN are telling people all day every day that has to be a moderate. Alot of people still buy into that. So even though they might prefer bernie sanders or warren, they are willing to hold their nose and vote for a "moderate" because that is what news pundits say they have to do. If your 1st choice is Biden or Butigieg and your second choice is sanders, then you probably aren't a moderate.
The media is trusted by only a small minority of Americans so saying Bernie has no chance is probably helping him tbh. The people they endorse usually end up tanking, like Kamala.
the media has respect among specific demographics. Mostly older and wealthier people. So while the media attacking sanders doesn't hurt him much with his core demographic, it does make it hard for him to pick up support in the "older" and "upper middle class white" demographics. These are the demographics that support(ed) people like Butigieg, Kamela, Warren etc. That is why you keep seeing them spike and crash because the media pumps them up, then something happens to make the media narrative change so they crash again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Iowa:Bernie/Warren: 44.2%Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar: 54.3%
Ok, and if you add all of them together you get 100%, that would also be a useless statistic.
you can't add candidates together and pretend like that is a valid point. Alot of the 2nd choices for those other candidates you've grouped is Bernie, not each other.
Now, I know Bernie has been at the top of these polls, but isn't this quite damning for your side?
no, not at all. The highest 2nd choice for Biden voters is Bernie, not Butigieg or klobachar. Not to mention that Iowa is one of the hardest states for someone like bernie to win.
The fact that the progressive candidates are getting less than half of the votes, while centrists candidates make up more than half? They haven't chosen one candidate to rally behind, but it is clear that they want a moderate.
this is a gross misreading. They are looking for someone who they think can beat trump. The media has been non stop lying and saying that is whoever the flavor of the week is. That is not evidence that they want a "moderate" candidate. It is evidence that people are still buying the bullshit electablitity nonsense MSNBC and CNN are spewing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Correct but that’s just with Vermont which is very D+15 as a state. Slightly misleading to say he’s the most popular senator in the nation. (He is but it doesn’t mean much).
fair enough. Here are the favorability ratings of all the candidates. Sanders has a 3% edge on Biden and a huge lead on everyone else.
He’d be slaughtered in any swing state or swing congressional district. Radicals like him were practically wiped out in House races in 2018.
I've yet to see any evidence this is true. Swing state voters want their lives to improve every bit as much as everyone else does. Sanders is by far the best candidate to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A.) Polls this far out don’t mean anythingB.) Remember how the polls worked out last time?
true. bernie will beat trump by more than what the polls say.
On a a side note, Joe is practically done. Sanders is gaining in South Carolina. If Joe doesn’t get first, he’s done.
agreed. Biden made a big deal out of how he didn't need to win Iowa or New Hampshire or even Nevada because he was going to win big in the south. South Carolina was supposed to be his firewall. If he doesn't win it, or even if he does and the results are really close, he is in big trouble. He had a HUGE lead there like a month or 2 ago.
The nominee will likely be Bernie Sanders who moderates do not like.
agreed he is the most likely nominee. Disagree that moderates do not like him. He is the most popular senator in the country.
Last night proved that Bernie is very vulnerable. He got lucky the person who attacked him was Bloomberg.
lol vulnerable to what? They are using the same lies that have been thrown at him for years. They have nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
BLM and Black Panthers are undeniably racist though and orders of magnitudes larger than the KKK.
BLM isn't racist. It is literally about making people see that black lives are the same as white lives. It is the exact opposite of racist. It is about equality between races. Now, are certain members of that movement racist, yeah sure, but the movement itself is not.
Are the black panthers even a thing any more?
I am not arguing that the Klan has huge membership in america. But that isnt because racism has gone away. It is because being associated with the Klan is no longer seen as acceptable. So racists are still racists, they just don't sign up to a club for racists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not going to defend antifa. They engage in lots of behavior I don't agree with. But someone fighting against fascism is still a much better person than someone fighting to suppress the rights of people of color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's much more likely that you will personally meet a member of Antifa, BLM, or the Black Panthers than you will personally meet a member of the Nazi party or the KKK in America.
of course, most racists wouldn't admit to being in the KKK or the Nazi party. But there are WAY more racists than antifa.
Edit - I meant that most racists wouldn't join a club devoted to racism. but they are still racists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In a way, Obama helped to end racism by definitively proving having black skin makes you neither a superhero or a pariah, as he was undoubtedly the most mediocre middle of the road forgettable president in the last 100 years, ending the ridiculous notion that melanin equates to merit.
I agree he was a forgettable president. He campaigned on the left, won big, then sold out and moved right after he won accomplishing very little.
But there are still Nazi marches in america. Black people still regularly get harassed and discriminated against. Him being president didn't change racism. I mean bloomberg has polled in 2nd place and he has openly advocated for racist policies for years.
A woman being president wouldn't change sexism.
Created:
If you happened to watch the debate last night, she basically said she isn't going to drop out. The last question was about whether a candidate who gets a plurality of delegates but not a majority on the 1st vote should be the nominee. She was very clear that she was holding onto her delegates in the 1st vote which would mean she is staying in it to the end.
She has a point too. If bernie has a plurality but not a majority, the DNC will want to try to rig the convention to keep bernie from winning. They will need a candidate to crown to steal it from bernie. If they pick any of the "moderate" (corporatist) candidates they will destroy the democratic party by ensuring that huge chunks of the democratic base stay home. They might even split off a whole new party if it becomes obvious the democratic party is too corrupt to be saved which would completely doom them.
Warren is the only one who even has a shot at keeping the party together if they rob bernie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I also liked the part where Klobuchar said if you want to get rid of the sexism, elect a woman.The hypocrisy was lost on nearly the entire audience.
I had a good laugh about that line. She is just so cringey. I mean electing Obama didn't solve racism. The idea that electing a woman would solve sexism is just stupid on the face of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’d beat anyone on that stage.
polls show that Biden and Sanders would both beat trump. Sanders in particular is well placed to beat trump.
The thing that struck out most to me was the pledge to not support the person who got the most delegates after round 1 at the convention.
Yeah that was a bit slimy. Basically, everyone on that stage (other than sanders of course) knows they have little to no chance of getting the most votes going into a brokered convention. (biden theoretically still could, but I think it is unlikely) They know that their only path to winning is if they can sleaze the super delegates into crowning them. Committing to upholding the will of the people would make it basically impossible for most of them to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Biggest winner was Donald Trump. Biggest loser was Michael Bloomberg
I keep seeing people saying that, but it just seems silly to me. Trump has his base. They are going to vote for him no matter what. The democratic debates have absolutely no effect on that.
Having a vigorous debate where the critical flaws of candidates come out is a very good thing. It keeps bad candidates from getting the nomination and then getting crushed. Insofar as this debate hamstrung Bloomberg, it was very bad for Trump since Trump would crush Bloomberg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think Bloomberg took a really hard kicking. I think Biden looked like he didn't know what he was saying half the time. Klobachar and Butigieg took lots of shots at each other, but they are mostly irrelevant at this point anyway.
The person who stood out to me most was warren. It is probably way too late for it to change her fortunes. If she had acted like that the whole time, she would probably be winning. It's a bit sad she gave in to her corporate, Clinton era advisers for most of the campaign and destroyed herself.
Ultimately, Sanders is still looking extremely strong coming out of this debate. He is the front runner nationally. He is leading in Nevada by more than 10 points. I think this debate will primarily help Sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't want to project, but I feel like liberals would be likely to fight for those specific majors I mentioned because conservatives are near non-existent in those majors, while they are very present in business and economics majors.
I'm not sure that is accurate.
I'm not sure that the concern of politicization would be too bad if you go by purely objective measures of income or job placement rates. I am sure that the parties may fight over where to draw the line based on the student-types that support their party. But I wouldn't support the party in power cherry-picking majors. The market decides what is important at the time based on wages and job creation pretty well, so the aforementioned measures would work pretty well in my opinion,
I still think they would be very easy to mess with. The government could just choose how they want to interpret the information or just add exemptions because they feel like it. It seems like a system that would not function well.
I'm not sure how much better it is to let people choose any random major. It would probably just be better to steer them towards what we know to be useful with incentives. Technology does change pretty frequently, but the majors required to complete these tasks don't seem to change too much (I am in a business school, so not entirely certain). The same basic programming knowledge is needed as far as I can tell, there just might be some slight tweaks for specialization.
oh god no. I took programming in high school about 15 years ago. Literally everything i learned is entirely obsolete. In alot of tech jobs, if you have been out of school for more than 5 years, than a decent chunk of your knowledge is obsolete. If the schools can only train people for things that already have a proven job market, then it will always be years behind the trends and struggling to catch up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
folks capable enough to get scholarships. smart people are the only ones who should dare those degrees anyway. it gives rich people a leg up, but who cares?
this is one of my problems though, both with how the system works now and how you are proposing. You would be giving the wealthy education advantages over everyone else.
overall, you have to do a cost benefit analysis on this, and the benefits clearly outweigh the cost. .
the benefits of paying for college and university would significantly out weigh the costs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
how do you feel about only letting the majors be allowed for grants that produce a certain amount of income upon graduation? that means the majors are marketable, good for the economy.
How would you make those determinations though? For example, a psychology major doesn't have great job prospects. They will need a masters or a PHD to really use it. Do we cover a psych degree?
How about a new kind of degree for a kind of job that is emerging? For example a new type of tech job. We would have little to no stats about the job prospects for that degree because the job is just emerging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There could be specific guidelines based on job placement and ratios of median income to tuition cost for the government. Job mobility and max income in that field would also be considered. I don’t have access to all of that data, but perhaps you should be projected to pay tuition back in income taxes within 10-15 years based on the norm in that industry.
i agree that some sort of system might be necessary to determine what sort of post secondary education is frivolous. But my concerns about letting the government decide what is/isn't frivolous are:
1) it is open to abuse. For example they could agree that specific right/left leaning political studies are good, but the opposing views are frivolous. Or they could decide that studies in an industry they have ties to are important, but that other industries are frivolous. This would hurt the economy and the students.
2) it would be slow to react. If you prove that lots of jobs in that industry exist, then you needed to start training people like 4 or 5 years earlier. In a world where technology changes radically every few years, letting a government agency decide what people can or can't take would likely make the system very slow to adapt.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s anecdotal but it’s widespread in my case.
you have underlined exactly why your point is irrelevant. You only have a tiny sample you are using. Perhaps in your specific town/city that is true. You have no information about the other 99.999% of the country.
Even Moderate Republicans who dislike Trump (Never Trumpers) told me that if Bernie was the nominee they’d vote for Trump in a heartbeat because Bernie is a radical.
Republicans will likely end up voting for trump no matter what. The idea that any democratic candidate could get enough republicans to vote for them to make a difference is a joke.
Even if the divide between Moderate and Progressive is 20-80 and 7-8% of the 20% vote Trump it choose not to vote at all, benefits Trump.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works. The idea that such a thing as a "moderate" exists simply isn't true. If you asked someone if they are a progressive or a moderate most people would say moderate. If you asked them what they think of specific progressive policies, most would support them.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’s only popular among people who are very liberal.
do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis? Polling shows he is the most popular senator in the country. His supporters are predominantly working class people who realize that the economy is designed to screw them over. These people are not "very liberal". They are just people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you support the taxpayer paying for people's degrees who are very unlikely to find employment related to their degree and if so, why?
i'm not 100% sure. I can certainly see the argument to why those are worthless degrees. But how would you control for that? Would you have a government agency that decides which degrees are valid and which are not?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was a joke😂😂. I’m just voting him in the primaries because he’d be easy to defeat.
sanders is, by far, the biggest threat to trump. He is one of the most popular politicians in the country. His ethics and morality are virtually unquestioned. If Sanders becomes the nominee, Trump is in real trouble.
Created:
Posted in:
in my opinion it should be no different than a primary school education. The modern work place needs people with advanced degrees, both college and university. There are less and less jobs available for people who don't have a secondary degree.
Since we know that our workforce needs this level of training, we should make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get this training. I mean, you should still have to get the grades to qualify to get in, but having money should not be requirement to get an education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
no, the attorney general is.No sir. You need a civics lesson.
please provide evidence that the president is supposed to control inividual cases at the justice department. Otherwise, please just stop repeating yourself.
?? Lol. Can you be more dishonest? I can give you a link showing that the President is the Chief law enforcement officer in the country and is the boss of the AG.And once again, the president did not order the AG to lower the sentences for his friends. Please stop lying.
He publicly announced it. How delusional are you?
trump is ordering investigations of his enemies and the lowering of sentences for his criminal friends.Another lie. Thank God the Senate was not suffering from TDS.
what are you talking about, he tweeted it out. How can you deny reality so easily?
Now its "arranges" and not "orders"? Trump expressed his opinion. He did not arrange or order anything.
lol trump has a history of firing anyone and everyone who displeases him. He then publicly announces that he wants the justice department to do something. Only an idiot would pretend that wasn't him pressuring them to do what he wants.
It isn't "interference" HB. Your calling it so doesn't make it so. And why would Trump "publicly" announce interference?
tell them to take specific action on cases is interference. That is just a fact. He publicly announced it because he believes nothing he does has consequences. He knows brainwashed people, such as yourself, will defend anything he does. You are watching him abuse his power and you simply do not care.
The President did not tell his AG to go after his enemies and reduce sentences on his friends. You are only alleging that. Surely you can tell the difference between what the President does and what you suspect he did?
lol he tweeted out a confession. You really are delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
We found you can't negotiate with terrorists.
The american revolutionaries would have been called terrorists. The french were definitely terrorists in WW2. The jews have definitely acted as terrorists. Don't pretend like terrorism hasn't been used all over the world. The US is still bombing funerals and weddings to this day.
Saying you won't negotiate with people just means that the conflict will only ensure conflict continues.
Who lived there 6,000 years ago? I'll answer for you, since you seem shy. Israelis.
True. A group of people who called themselves Israelites lived there thousands of years ago. That doesn't mean that the people who choose to call themselves Israeli's now are the same people.
Is Jericho a fictional city?
no, that seems entirely unrelated though.
So what? Will the Japanese lose Japan when their population reaches a certain number?
if 99% of the people living in Japan were some other ethnicity, then it would no longer be Japan.
So European Jews just picked Israel out of a hat as their ancestral land? Are you daft?
no. They decided to call their new nation the same name as the ancient one for publicity and to lend the state some level of credibility.
Both untrue and irrelevant. Jews have always existed in Israel.
in tiny, virtually insignificant numbers. The vast majority of what you consider Israeli's moved there since the end of WW 1. They are almost all Jewish people of various ethnic backgrounds that moved there because of European backed zionism.
Lol!! "Happened" by chance? If they were Jews genius......
I'm saying that they were french, german, italian etc. They were also Jewish. They decided that they wanted to move to Israel to have their own state.
back.Corrected for ya. And there were Jews there in Israel too.
You cannot have "back" something you have never had.
they are walled into an open air prison because the Israeli's are trying to starve them and abuse them into submitting to their demands.Right, it has nothing to do with them being bloody terrorists.
The US has, and continues, to engage in terrorism. Don't pretend like they are somehow evil for using the same tactics america does.
I would never put bombs in grade schools or rain down missiles on innocents, or murder 50 of my own people to get a single enemy soldier.
are you aware that america has murdered millions of innocent people? The US government still does this. Why do you feel like they are evil for doing the same thing America did and continues to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That is ridiculous on its face. So many countries have tried. All of them were of bad faith?
the last significant attempt to negotiate was decades ago. The current plan wasn't even discussed with the Palestinians. They talked the israeli's, agreed with everything they wanted, then announced the plan. That isn't even an attempt at negotiating.
Came from where? The country is called Israel, the people are Israeli. Coincidence? What nationality was David? Who lived there 6,000 years ago?
David is almost certainly a fictional character. They don't tend to have nationalities.
Yet we have documentation of Israel from 6,000 years ago. What country is called Palestine?
Please prove to me that modern day israeli's the same people who lived there 6,000 years ago.
If they were still there contesting the land yes. The Israeli have always been in Israel. Unlike the Romans, who invaded and conquered Europe.
This is just straight up a lie. The jewish population in the region was tiny until about 100 years ago when European jews started moving there.
Then how come there are ancient documents and artifacts and history of Israel centuries before 1940?
a country came into existence in the 1940's and named itself after a country that existed a long time ago. That doesn't mean they are the same people or that they have any right to be there.
Nonsense. What treaty granted Africa to Africans? No one needs a treaty to their own land. Why would Israeli need a treaty to Israel?
because until the 1940's none of them lived there. They were eurpeans who happened to be jewish and decided they wanted their own country.
So do their Muslim brothers in Egypt. Do you know why? They are walled into an open air prison because they behaved like criminals, bombing and killing innocents.
they are walled into an open air prison because the Israeli's are trying to starve them and abuse them into submitting to their demands. Of course they are going to fight back against that. If you were being starved and blockaded by a hostile people you would fight back too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No sir. You need a civics lesson.
please provide a link to a source saying it is normal for a president to order the AG to lower the sentences for his friends.
I said nothing about day to day running. The president is the head of the executive branch, the Justice dept. is part of the executive. He is the boss of the AG.
trump is ordering investigations of his enemies and the lowering of sentences for his criminal friends. Making decisions about investigations and sentences is interfering in the day to day running of the justice department.
Both the President and the AG denied that the president ordered the justice department to take specific actions on specific cases. Calm down your TDS.
lol so a matter of days after trump arranges his trial to be fixed and he gets off the hook, the justice department then starts trying to go after trump's enemies and let his criminal friends off the hook. He is publicly announcing he wants to interfere in the justice department. It is not in any way unreasonable to think that trump is doing something that he is doing in full view of the public.
You showed me why you think it is an abuse of power. Reality doesn't reside between your ears. A president talking to his AG is not meddling or an abuse of power.
the president telling his AG to go after his enemies and reduce sentences on his friends is a very blatant abuse of power.
I'm not the one making ridiculous charges against Trump. The question makes sense. And it's telling that you can't answer. The fact that Trump put his opinion in a public tweet is evidence he was not attempting to do anything illegal.
your question was why didn't trump make these orders in private. I am quite certain he has done that too. The question was stupid. Trump is announcing his corruption in public because he knows his base doesn't care. You are seeing him live tweeting abuse of office and you are defending it.
No, but since I don't suffer from TDS, I also don't believe the president is below the law either. He remains innocent until proven guilty.
everyone is supposed to be below the law. that is the point. Everyone must obey it. If the president has the authority to order the justice department to do what he wants on specific cases, he is above the law. They cannot charge him, and if he orders them not to charge his friends then they are above the law too. The system you seem to want is to make trump king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? It's just more fear tactics to control the population, or do you think Trump supporters have nothing to lose like Palestine?
what do you mean so what? He is an incredibly corrupt politician willing to use the levers of power to profit himself even if it undercuts america or democracy itself. He is also really dumb and could start a war with a tweet at any moment.
Trump supporters have lots to lose, sadly by supporting trump they are losing right now along with everyone else. They just refuse to see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What is meddling? The President is the head of the Justice Department.
no, the attorney general is. The president appoints the attorney general. But he is not supposed to be in charge of the day to day operations of the department, because if he were then he could use it in extremely corrupt ways. Which is exactly what trump is doing right now.
If he is allowed to do WHAT, atheist with article? Talking to your employee is now "meddling"?
ordering the justice department to take specific actions on specific cases that involve your friends is meddling. It is also abuse of office.
But that is not what transpired. Honesty is a virtue HB.
It was an example of the kind of corruption that could occur if the president was allowed to meddle in the justice department. He hasn't gone quite that far (which would be extremely illegal). He has just meddled to get his ally, Roger Stone, a lighter sentence for a crime he was convicted of as well as retaliating against the prosecutor that had been in charge of the case.
Everything Trump does is a "clear abuse of Power" to you TDS sufferers.
Lol he abuses his power regularly. I have then shown you exactly why it is abuse of power. You then put your fingers in your ears and pretend the corruption isn't happening. Which one of us has TDS?
Answer this question. If Trump intended to interfere with the justice department to benefit himself and his friends, why would he not simply do that in a private phone call to Barr?
Why do you think he hasn't done that too?
The President is head of the Justice department. He can discuss any case with the AG. He is the direct boss of the AG, and his mandate as CEO is enforcement of the country's laws.
He could discuss a case with the AG. But if he orders (or even pressures) the AG to take specific actions on a case, especially if that case relates to a friend of the president, that would be abuse of power.
If the justice department can be controlled by the president, then the president and his friends are effectively above the law. Do you think the president and his friends are above the law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As long as Palestinians run on the lie that any of Israel is theirs, Israel will never capitulate.
you haven't proven that this would be their position. It is in fact impossible to prove that because no one has tried to negotiate in good faith with them for decades.
This is the same sort of lie going on in Africa and Afghanistan that the UN validates. Some ragtag strongman kills enough people and thus gets a "right" to co-govern with the real elected officials.
this doesn't even make sense.
Where did this insanity come from that Israel was for Palestinians? Is it any wonder that both the Libs in Britain and the Dems in the US are riddled with anti-semites?
lol the palestinians lived there long before the Israeli's came. The israeli's managed to establish their country. They then went on to steal a bunch more land later. It is that extra stolen land I am discussing, not the land that actually makes up the country of Israel.
Does any country on Earth have a longer and clearer history of connection to its land than Israel?
virtually all of them. Israel has only existed a few decades. for centuries, if not millennia, before that the jewish population in the region was negligible. By this logic to the Itallians have the right to own all of Europe because the romans lived there 2,000 years ago? It is a silly argument.
When did Israel lose it's land? When did he land become the property of Palestinians? And why did it switch ownership?
What do you mean, what land did Israel ever lose? The country came into existence in the 1940's. Since then it has taken more land.
Palestinians are from Jordan. None of Israel belongs to them. They are walled into an open air prison because they behaved like criminals, bombing and killing innocents.
they lived there. Israel attacked them and took their land. No treaty ever granted that land to israel. It is extremely clear that the land still belongs to the Palestinians.
Israel does not starve them of resources, they take their meager resources and waste them on armaments. They starve themselves.
you are aware that Israel blockades the palestinians right? Israel is literally starving them of resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Clearly you have not been paying attention to modern MSM as the fear of Russia, Russia, Russia, and the various flavors of Orangemanbad are used to attempt to force the population into submission.
lol, trump has proven ties to the russians as well as other authoritarian regimes. He is proven to have used his power to influence other governments to do things to personally benefit himself. He has brought america to brink of war only to stop at the last second. There are very, very good reasons to be concerned about Trump.
Except an unlimited right to return is a de-facto occupation of all of Israel's land by Palestine and the end of Israel as a nation, so there's that.
that is a different issue to the one we were discussing. I agree that would be a tricky thing to iron out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The president is not supposed to be meddling in the justice department. If he is allowed to do that, it is an incredibly powerful tool for corruption. For example, having charges thrown out or sentences reduced in exchange for political favors.
The president attempting to interfere with the justice department to benefit himself and his friends is a clear abuse of power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
My current position is that all guns should be legal, from muskets to AR 15s and AK 47s.
why stop there. If you think there should be no restrictions, why not grenades, and rocket launcers and nuclear weapons for every household. I mean who is going to try to rob a house armed with thermo-nuclear weapons?
Your more likely to die from a lightning strike than you are to die from an "assault weapon" statistically. Yet no one advocates for more research done to prevent humans from dying from lightning.
i'm pretty sure research is done to protect people and property from lightning.
Yet plenty of people talk about banning "dangerous" weapons they think are dangerous, even though dying from them is more rare than dying from lightning.
does anyone think an assault weapon isn't dangerous? If they do, they obviously don't know what it is.
If they have a history of mental illness that makes them want to shoot someone, they should get put into a mental institution, banning guns for them would make them get guns illegally or another weapon legally.
This is just kind of nuts. America already has huge problems with imprisoning too many people. If you want to lock people up just because they might be someday commit a crime, the cost would be staggering. There are alot of people who can function in society but should not be allowed to possess a gun because they have proven they cannot be trusted to use it responsibly.
I also don't believe that all guns should be locked up so a kid can't get them, largely because they don't use the gun to shoot someone.
children kill people accidentally with guns all the time. Here is an article about how 73 children died from gun accidents in 1 year. Children are, by nature of being children, not old enough or responsible enough to be able to be around guns safely. You shouldn't keep knives where children can get them either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Oh please. Israel has nuclear weapons
officially, no they do not. Unofficially, maybe. If they ever used them on palestine it would be the end of them. Both because the radiation would splash back on them and also because the entire world would turn on them in a heartbeat.
Israel has been the model of tolerance. Israel has not yet even approached what it is possible for them to do.
Bombing them, starving them, keeping out medicine and other necesary supplies. Keeping them in the worlds biggest open air prison. What else, short of genocide, could they possibly do?
The only deal they will accept is one that validates the lie that Israel is theirs.
how would you know? No one has tried a real negotiation in decades.
It will end when Israel makes them understand that continued fighting is indistinguishable from death.
giving in to israel would basically be to give up any hope of ever attaining independence or rights under international law. They literally have no option but to fight.
And I say, if the Palestinians won't see reason, Israel should apply pressure to them until they do.
They have been, for decades. And the world has sat back and let it happen. It hasn't worked. It will never work. The only thing left to do is to force Israel to actually negotiate in good faith.
Why should Israel give up their land?
no one is asking israel to give up their land. They are asking them to return to their land and stop occupying palestinian land.
Interesting, as I find misunderstanding human nature is the main failing of liberalism. Pointed succinctly (as usual) by GP above.
anyone who thinks that you can force a population to submit to your rule by fear is clearly someone who has not paid much attention to modern history. It simply doesn't work. If it did, the world would still be ruled by empires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I cannot stop you, but it is hypocritical to @ me when you have me blocked. Just like a liberal, you want to shout and drown out the voice of others. Cancel culture.
the reason I had blocked you was you were consistently going for ad hominem attacks and ignoring what I was saying. But you don't seem to be doing that now so I have unblocked you.
No sir. It was imposed. Both Japan and Germany were beaten into submission. Both Adolf and the Emperor did the same thing, they bowed to the inevitable, they could no longer resist the imposition.
No, they surrendered. They could easily have chosen to carry on. German troops could have resorted to guerrilla style tactics to continue to resist. Japan was in no way beaten when they surrendered. They could easily have carried on fighting. In fact there was an attempted coup by the military to prevent the surrender.
Those wars ended because 1 side accepted peace, not because peace was somehow imposed on them.
We know this is untrue because we know wars end. No side in a war is willing to surrender until the other side makes continuing indistinguishable from surrender. No side can continue fighting forever if they do not have an unlimited army. No one fights forever.
incorrect. In vietnam america dropped hundreds of millions of tons of bombs in vietnam. They killed millions of people. the vietnamese never surrendered. They kept fighting against an opponent with vastly superior weapons until that opponent surrendered and went home. If you look at the 2nd punic war, hannibal crushed every roman army he could get his hands on. By the standard of the day, the romans were beaten. They simply refused to surrender and raised a new army every time hannibal slaughtered one. In the end the romans ground them down and won the war.
A war never ends until one side gives up.
And the Russian soldiers marching into the capital of Germany convinced Hitler, and the mass atomic death in Nagasaki and Hiroshima convinced Japan. Palestine can likewise be convinced.
The israeli's have already done everything possible to try to force them to give up. They've bombed them, starved them, cut off their access to medical supplies. Short of genocide, it will not be possible to force them to accept peace. You need to make them want peace. The only way to do that is to offer a deal that they want to accept. And if Israel won't accept that they have to give the stolen land back, that isn't going to happen.
Nonsense. There is no reason the Palestinians cannot be convinced.
of course they can be convinced, if Israel is willing to concede some points, such as the stolen land. If Israel insists that they won't give up anything, then the conflict will continue.
And they are already genocidal maniacs having stated their desire to extinguish Israel from the Earth.
this is just a wild exaggeration and slander that isn't worthy of discussion.
Wars end when there is no one left willing to fight. Removing the people who wish to fight will save the lives of the majority. Israel should make them an offer they cannot refuse, and this problem will vanish in one generation. Just like it did in Japan and Germany.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. When you corner someone, that is when they fight even harder because they have nothing to lose. Israel has taken everything from the palestinians over the last few decades. They have very little to lose from continuing to fight. Trump's "peace" plan was just insulting on the face of it and gave them no reason to even discuss it.
The conflict will continue until Israel concedes they can't keep the stolen land. If they won't see reason, the rest of the world should apply pressure to them until they do.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Even if Klobuchar doesnt win any state primary, if she keeps siphoning off votes from Warren just by being considered an alternative, it would doom Warren who is already struggling massively
I think warren is doomed no matter what. She is a candidate without any clear lane. She started out as a progressive and went on to (very briefly) become the national front runner. But then she starting taking all her advice from former clinton advisors. She came out with a healthcare plan that was widely seen as either stupid or a cop out. she started leaning heavily into "identity politics" and away from her "I have a plan for that" policy focused campaign she started with. She also took a really cheap shot at Bernie which most saw as a cynical politcal attack, which is completely against her brand.
At this point she has lost most of her base. Most progressives prefer Bernie, most centerists prefer Biden, butigieg or klobochar. she tried to straddle the line between the two camps and lost most of both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Peace can be imposed.It was imposed on Japan. Germany. Panama. Mexico. Sri Lanka. I could go on.Since the Palestinians will not accept peace, it should be imposed.
You are incorrect. Peace was not imposed on japan or germany. They surrendered. They chose to accept peace. If one side does not accept peace, then peace is impossible. They will continue fighting forever. The only way to bring peace is to convince both sides to accept it, or to exterminate one side.
If you can't convince the palestinians to accept peace and you aren't a genocidal maniac, then peace will never happen.
Created: