Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In fact, the one ban in all of American history that was the most effective on that type (stop and frisk) was destroyed not by the NRA, but the incompetent, panderizing left.
Wait, so you think the government should be small and not have much power, but they should be able to stop you for no reason and search you? That is some Nazi level invasion of privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Instead of banning assault weapons why not just ban people from committing crimes with assault weapons?
It is impossible to know who will commit a crime with an assault weapon. If no one has any assault weapons, then it is extremely easy to know. No one will.
Created:
Fun side note. A poll of the popularity of senators just came out. The most popular senator in america is Bernie Sanders with a 65% approval rating and 29% disapproval. Warren was the 9th lowest rated with 50% approval and 40% disapproval.
She might have wanted to look at this kind of information before getting into a he-said she-said argument.
It also disproves the idea that warren (or in my opinion Biden) could unite the country. Warren's approval ratings are way lower.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Did you know Trump literally won because of the swing states? All that democrats need to do is appeal to swing voters. Literally don't even know what occurred in 2016 even though I have used that as an example multiple time here.
what would make you think that a failed neo-liberal would appeal to swing voters? They didn't show up to vote for hilary. They wouldn't show up to vote for Biden either. Your argument is basically we need to do exactly what failed to work last time.
If you pick a shitty dem-soc who agrees with the label of socialist then the democrats have lost if he is the facing against Trump.
Trump won because people want change. Swing voters want change. Picking a candidate that was integrally involved in creating the system people want to fix is not a winning strategy.
Biden appeals to the swing states and that is how you win.
Why would you think that Biden appeal to swing voters? He just wants to return to the failed policies he has been pushing for decades. People want change. Biden wants to go backwards. He would get the same result hilary got. The left stays home and trump wins.
No one cares about policy so please stop bringing it up, they only care about how their side can win.
This might be the stupidest thing you've ever said. People care about who is going to make their lives better. That is policy. They might not have a detailed understanding of the various plans, but to say they don't care about policy is just dumb.
Swing voters are literally the best bet not because they care about policy. If you persuade them that their interests are more close to the Democrats than Trump the Democrats win.
If you campaign on going backwards and not fixing anything, then trump will win. Why would progressives show up to vote for someone when they aren't going to do anything positive. The democrats need to stop taking their base for granted. If you only worry about appealing to people who don't support you, then your own supporters won't show up. That is why the dems lost 1000 seats under obama.
Nope. I have countless examples of poor right wingers voting against their own interests by not voting Democrats for healthcare. Lol this is far from the truth. It is party over rationale.
That is still policy though. They don't support a specific policy. They are dumb to not support it, but they still care about it.
Evidence that people are going to drafted or they care about foreign policy.
One of trump's main campaign promises was getting out of the middle east. It was a big hit.
So Bernie the almighty doesn't transcend right-wing lies but you still think he will do good in the meme debates? Okay.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.
They had adjusted it in the 2016 polling which is why it was correct so don't expect me to provide evidence of something that is not even questionable they are wrong about.
please provide evidence they adjusted for it.
Your link shows an increase in 2016 but were the polls wrong? No.
my link shows a small increase, but still way down from 2008.
Bernie beat his polling by several points in alot of states in the primary.No he didn't. Those were swing states meaning they could've gone either way.
lol the polls said he had X support. He got more than X support (in some cases by alot) but you don't want them to count. this is just sad.
Are you looking for the polling that shows bernie has the large majority of support with younger voters?Sure
Here is one from california where Sanders has 45% and Biden has 12% support between 18-29. They vary by how much Sanders is crushing everyone else in this category, but I don't think I've seen any polls that have Sanders not winning in this age group.
20 year low??? Literally beat last years so it is not even right for the first 4 years.
my apologies, I did have a source that said that. But it would appear it was incorrect.
You literally cherrypicked data do you want me to do so as well?
As far as I can tell that is what you do all the time.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Gained the sexist vote from that one!
Bernie has fought for women's right's for decades. We has fighting for women while warren was still a republican. I think most people see through the stupid, clumsy attempt at a smear.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is two ways this can go:1) Trump doesn't even use that insult.2) He does use it and Bernie will agree to it and literally lose majority of the right . Race over Trump wins.
In what way is this relevant? Trump has like a 90% approval rating on the right. None of the dems care ever going to get enough votes on the right to make a difference. The only way to win is to get the base on the left to actually show up and vote. If you pick an exciting candidate that people want to vote for, like sanders, that will happen. If you pick a shitty neo-liberal it wont and trump will win.
People who voted for Trump wanted change. He won because of the swing states. Your statement makes no sense when all he has to do is win those swing states because they are not diehard Trump supporters because the states could've gone to Hillary or Trump.
exactly, they want change. So why would picking a candidate that wants to go backwards appeal to them at all? Biden will lose the states because he was part of the government that made them want trump in the 1st place.
Evidence? She lost because Trump was more appealing. Trump was more to blame on his victory than Hillary. Hillary could've done nothing wrong and still the right would've found something wrong about her. "neo-liberal policies" don't matter when people don't vote based on policies. What world are you living in?
People vote on whether or not their lives got better. People vote on whether or not they will be dragged into a war. Neo-Liberalism is a massive failure for most of the country. Hillary was heavily involved in creating the system that fucked over much of the country. No one particularly cared about her so alot of people just stayed home which let trump win.
What does fixing got to do when they can lie about him unless of course Bernie the almighty transcends right wing lies? Do say that before I know how deluded you are.
again, the right are going to lie about anyone and everyone. They will do it to sanders, they would do it to Biden. So if everyone is going to be lied about, it is not a useful factor to take into account for picking a candidate.
This is false. They have already adjusted for this
please provide evidence that polling companies have adjusted for this. That link is for the US Census Bureau, not a polling company. I was using it to show you what weighting was since you seemed to be unaware.
If they were able to accurately poll Hillary V Trump they can do so now because if you haven't heard there was "record highs" in 2016 as well.
I explained this already. Higher than average youth turnout rate wouldn't throw off the poll if both candidates are equally appealing (or unappealing) to youth. So in a contest between a neo-liberal and nut job, neither one got higher support among youth. In a contest between Biden and Sander that is very, very different. Biden has virtually no support among younger voters, Sanders has massive support among younger voters.
What are you even saying? I am saying even though there was "record highs" during the 2016 election the polls accurately predicted what would occur. Are you saying young people weren't a factor in the race if so why would Bernie win now when he didn't beat Hillary?
Bernie beat his polling by several points in alot of states in the primary. This is because of under counted young and 1st time voters. It wasn't enough to make him win then, but the polls were definitely undercounting his support. In the 2016 general election youth turnout was not particularly high. As you can see in this graph the youth vote was up a bit from 2012, but significantly down from 2008.
Still want an answer to this "nor are they going to vote for Bernie. "
I don't understand. Are you looking for the polling that shows bernie has the large majority of support with younger voters?
What are you even saying? I am saying even though there was "record highs" during the 2016 election the polls accurately predicted what would occur.
There was record high turnout in 2018. Not in 2016. Hilary was a shitty candidate. Voter turnout was like a 20 year low.
Do you want me to cherrpick states that Bernie didn't do better than the polls or do you accept that you are cherrypicking?
lol so you put out polling that is completely useless, then attack me for daring to question polling. I show you polling that shows the exact phenomenon I am trying to explain to you and you attack me for using polls. do you not see how intellectually dishonest you are being?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
We are discussing how people would fair against Trump. Do you actually think Bernie will do good against Trump?
Absolutely. He is much sharper mentally that Biden so he would do much better in debates. He is largely immune or at least resistant to alot of the attacks that trump has/would use. Being a "socialist" is basically meaningless at this point because as far as the republicans are concerned everyone is a socialist. He isn't part of the establishment so he isn't part of the "swamp". He appeals to the same anger against the establishment that made trump win so he is actually much better positioned to win over voters who otherwise would stay home.
2020 is going to be an election about turnout. You can't convert trump's base. You can only make sure you turn out more of your own base. The people who would turn out for biden are the same, if not less, people who turned up for hilary. We know that doesn't work. We need to appeal to people who want change.
You keep saying it would be easier to attack Biden but haven't explained why. Record doesn't matter when Hillary lost the meme debate because of her conspiracy theories.
hillary didn't lose because of conspiracy theories. Hilary lost because most of the country didn't really care about her. She wasn't going to change much or fix anything. She was going to continue the same neo-liberal policies that have been screwing over poor people for decades. She couldn't get people to turn up to vote.
That is a clear example of a candidate as in Hillary still had the right wing lie and make stuff up to have people like Trump to use that against her. Why make the claim that Bernie would do better when they can just lie about him as well?
You're never going to convince people on the right to vote for joe biden. It won't happen. The only way to win is to get more people on the left and center to show up and vote. To do that you need to appeal to people. you need to have ideas that will help people and make their lives better. Biden's plan is essentially to try to go back to the obama years. He's not going to fix anything because he was integrally involved with breaking them. Sanders can get new voters and young people to turn up and vote, biden cant.
Any proof that the polls are unfairly polling or am i supposed to believe that?
I never said they were unfairly polling, i said they were weighting their polls. Are you unfamiliar with how polling works? They all do this, it is normal procedure. The intention is to make polls representative of the population. So if your random sample got 60 black people and 40 white people, but the demographics are 50/50, you would weight the answers of the white people higher and the black people lower to try to correct for non representative sample.
In elections, this means trying to get a more accurate representation of who is actually going to vote, or a likely voter. Statistically, older people who have voted in previous cycles are more likely to vote again so they get weighted higher. but in a cycle where youth turnout has had record highs and some of the candidates are extremely popular among young people, this method under counts youth because based on previous cycles, the stats say they don't turn up to vote. Ergo, the people who are popular among older people do better in these polls and the people who are popular among younger people do worse.
All that you proved is that the 18-29 age group of voting went up. Not polls are under-valuing them nor are they going to vote for Bernie.
See answer above explaining weighting.
You would also need to explain why the polls were right with Hillary V Trump even though that also showed a positive trend as in an increase among 18-29 years old voters unless of course that you haven't thought that through.
Because neither candidate was more popular with young people. therefore the under counted young people were more or less evenly split between both. In this primary the young people overwhelmingly support Sanders, while old people overwhelmingly support Biden.
You didn't answer my question. You literally gave a reason that Hillary is disliked not that the polls were wrong or right about Hillary. Are you going to answer the question?
I did. Hilary was not particularly liked by young voters. Therefore they didn't turn up to vote for her in significant numbers. This is why weighting in most cycles isn't really an issue. As long as both sides ignore and don't appeal to young people, it is accurate to assume they won't show up to vote.
Sanders very much is liked be younger voters. They are going to show up in greater numbers to vote for him. Therefore the polls that weight against younger voters are under counting his support.
For Arizona they said Hillary would win and she did. A swing state is difficult to tell who would win which is why it is called a swing state.
lol you asked for proof that bernie has a history of doing better than his polling. I provided examples where he did better than his polling. now you want to move the goal posts.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So Bernie is somehow going to be good in the meme game since he is still sharp?
I'm not sure I understand your point. He is still quite on top of his game. Biden on the other hand is clearly declining.
It is still useful. I don't think there is a lot that can change if very little happens. Sure something extreme like a market crash can occur which will almost certainly give the victory to Democrats but I don't think it will happen.
What do you mean if very little happens? An election is going to happen. Things will absolutely change between now and the election.
Another great good faith interpretation. I am saying no matter who they are they will still be attacked by Trump. It might be easier to attack Biden but it doesn't mean Trump will find it difficult to attack Bernie.
You basically just accepted my point. It is much easier to attack Biden because he has an abysmal record. Trump will attack whoever the nominee is. It is much easier to attack someone with so many terrible things in their record.
This is not an odd phenomenon that you use past data to measure future occurrences. You are literally riding on the hope that new voters will arise and also vote for Bernie. Do you have any data to support this and a polling company who has this data?
Voter turnout among the 18-29 age range was up 79% in the 2018 midterms over 2014. The recent trends suggest younger voters are much more likely to turn out than in previous cycles. This means that the weighting under values them.
If young people were such a factor overlooked why were the polls right about Hillary V Trump?
Because young people didn't like hilary. Hilary was a corporatist, neo-liberal.
Is sanders going to do 10-15% better than the polls say, no probably not. But 2-5% better is likely. In some areas he beat the polling by 13-15% in 2016 though.Show me data on this.
The Wisconsin polling mostly put bernie at around 45%. He got 56.6% of the vote.
Iowa polling had him around 44%, he got 49.5% of the vote.
Arizona Polling put him at like 25%, he got 41.4% of the vote.
He out performed the polls by a couple of points in a bunch of states. in a few of them he out paces the polls by a significant margin. But when biden is only up by a few points, he only needs to beat the polls by a tiny amount to win.
I thought you knew that already.
I don't think i have interacted with him much. I meant that sincerely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's no secret that the DNC controls the state media coverage and the debates, and it's no secret the DNC wants Biden or Warren.
I think they would be fine with most of the field. They tried pushing Kamela, that failed. They tried pushing Beto, that failed too. They are still trying really hard to push Klobochar, but that is also failing.
At this point, they want anyone but Sanders to win. I'm sure they wouldn't want Yang either, but there is no chance of that.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why are they not great attacks?
Republicans have called every democrat a socialist. When literally everyone is on the receiving end of the same "slur" then it loses all meaning. They would certainly use it against everyone in the democratic field right now.
As for old, Sanders is still sharp as a tack. Trump isn't a whole lot younger either.
So polling data is irrelevant? Gotcha.
If there were an election between Biden and Trump next month, that polling would be super useful. but there isn't. Polling data about a hypothetical matchup long before a campaign starts is irrelevant.
It only takes one for it to stuck. Sure he can't attack him on being young but there is still stuff he can attack Bernie on.
So in your opinion, it makes no difference if one candidate has a huge amount of terrible things they have done and the other hasn't? They are 100% the same in their chances against trump? That makes no sense.
Biden is currently winning. I didn't accept that the polls are wrong so plz tell me how the polls are wrong about Bernie.
Polling companies weight their polls towards the people they consider most likely to vote. This is usually older people who voted in the previous elections cycles. This group favors Biden more than sanders. They weight against younger people and new voters because they consider them less likely to vote. In cycles where no one is actually trying to appeal to those groups, that is a viable strategy. But since Sanders has wide appeal and energy among those groups he gets much better turn out from them. This is why he consistently did better than the polling suggested he would in 2016. That is why he is likely to beat the polling by a few points this time as well.
Is sanders going to do 10-15% better than the polls say, no probably not. But 2-5% better is likely. In some areas he beat the polling by 13-15% in 2016 though.
Just for the future. Mopac is literally the embodiment of someone impossible to change.
thanks for the heads up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you feel about corporate CNN's recent hit pieces on Bernie?
Wow, this clip puts me in a tough position. I think Tucker Carlson is toxic garbage wrapped in human skin. But I actually kind of agreed with him *shudders*.
Yeah their hit piece was REALLY obvious. I mean they ran a story that had zero supporting evidence. The target of the slander has a history that is the exact opposite of what they are claiming. The timing and the source of the story is super suspicious. CNN doesn't have much, if any, credibility remaining. I mean, i'm pretty sure they also said that Sanders (a jewish man) was anti semetic. They have no limit to how low they will go.
But to be clear, Fox and Tucker Carlson and just as bad, if not worse.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How do you know this when literally no country ever can be considered communist?
fair enough. I was trying to show him that things can have similar names and similar characteristics but be very different.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
welp looks like CNN is going to burn Bernie lolloaded debate question pitting Warren against Berniethen the "leaked" mic confrontation after the debateclassic.
I think it is going to backfire and torch Warren. She looks petty and desperate. She accused him of being sexist without any evidence and when bernie's record is one of being a man who has fought for women's rights his whole career.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why does that matter when Trump can literally use anything to attack you on?
Of course trump is going to attack the nominee. But for sanders, he will call him a socialist and say he is old. But those aren't great attacks.
For Biden, he was in favor of interventionism in the middle east, which is super unpopular. He pushed Reagan to be harder on minor drug crimes and was a leader in pushing for harsh crime bills that have ruined millions of lives. His mind is obviously declining as he can't remember basic things, gets angry and loses his composure very easily and goes on weird semi-deranged rants (or as the media likes to call this "gaffs").
Trump has no end of attacks on Biden that are actually true. That is why they will land. That is why Biden would lose.
Are you saying those conspiracy theories about Hillary were correct?
I didn't pay attention to most of them. You would have to be more specific. But I would say the large majority of them were lies.
But your facts are almost entirely irrelevant.Lol. Spoken like a true anti-intellectual.
Indeed. An intellectual wouldn't throw out facts that are completely irrelevant. You may as well pull polling from the 1970's to try to predict the election.
In reality not in your fantasy world the polls were right about Hillary. This only works if they were wrong. They weren't wrong.
Did i say the polls were wrong about hillary? Also you would have to be much more specific. There were a very large number of them. But polls taken before the election even starts are extremely weak evidence at best. The campaign hasn't even started. Once it does the skeletons start to come out of the closet and Biden has much worse stuff in there.
How so you don't have facts only assumptions on what Trump will attack him on? Bearing in mind Trump will attack anyone on anything.
This isn't true. He wouldn't attack Butigieg on being too old. He would say that about Sanders. You can look at the candidate's faults to see how they can be attacked. For Biden that list is extremely long and damaging. Trump would have his pick of attacks that would work because there are so many terrible things to choose from Biden's past.
He still has a solid chance of winning the nomination. Although Sanders is now close enough that he has a serious shot at winning.Poll?
Polls show Biden and sanders in a dead heat in Iowa. Since Sanders typically does a few points better that polls suggest for reasons I have already explained (but will explain again if you want), this means he has a good shot of winning.
Polls also show Sanders within 1 point of biden in New Hampshire. Again, since he regularly does a few points better that polls suggest, that puts him in a good spot to win too.
Polls, if you include one from over a month ago, say Biden has a 5 point lead in nevada. Without the poll from a month ago it's more like 3. That is also a good opportunity for bernie to win.
And if bernie were to win 2 or even 3 of the 1st four states, that would be huge in terms of giving him momentum to win big on super tuesday. Now again, i'm not saying that Bernie is definitely going to win. Biden still has a solid chance. I'd say the odds are 60/40 Biden to sanders if things stay as they appear to be right now.
Created:
-->
@Vader
No because communism uses socialism as it's economy and is a dictatorship under one party. Democracy is democracy. Stop
Ah, so it isn't just socialism you don't understand. You don't know how communism works either.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Democratic socialism is socialism that advocates for democratic elections and controlling the economy more or less. Socialism is the same thing, just a variation, hence, it is still SOCIALISM
communism and democracy both include votes for the leader, so they must be the exact same system by your incredibly simplistic world view. I guess you just love communism.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Ok, be misinformed. Obama wasn't a good president, bu he wasn't a socialist. He was a Progressive
he wasn't even that. He engaged is "woke" identity politics, pretended to be progressive, but then rolled out right wing policies such as the ACA.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Socialism is still socialism is any shape or form, no matter what it is. Just because they have election doesn't make it not socialism
ohhh, I didn't realize that if things have similar names they have to be the exact same thing. The world must be a very simple place when you don't have to actually think about words and stuff and just choose to believe whatever fox news tells you.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is under the assumption someone else is better?
most of the field would be better. They don't have a record about being wrong about most major issues or ruining the lives of potentially millions of people.
There is a difference between fact and conjecture. You gave conjecture when I gave facts. See the difference? You literally inference an entirely new area and you constantly do it.
But your facts are almost entirely irrelevant. It's like if i did a study of people who had never eaten jelly beans and asked them their favorite flavor of jelly bean. The answer would be irrelevant because they don't know the answer yet. Polling a theoretical candidate who hasn't been publicly vetted against a known quantity (trump) is not useful a year in advance. The public are not aware of his record yet.
to mean you thought Biden has the best chance of winning, when it is the exact oppositePolls have him winning on the democrats side. Do you have polls to state otherwise?
I meant he has the worst chance of beating trump due to the previously mentioned list (the mental decline, his abysmal record, the millions of lives he has ruined etc). He still has a solid chance of winning the nomination. Although Sanders is now close enough that he has a serious shot at winning.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Sounds like socialism but with elections. Nice you keep up with your logic
They have some things in common. They also have differences. Pretending they are the same thing is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, every 1st rate philosopher knows everyone has self-interest and greed and power corrupts absolutely.This is old news.
So when you want to fight corruption, you should choose the most corrupt person you can find? You have some strange (and stupid) ideas.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Economic socialism with demcoracy is still socialism
It doesn't matter how many times I repeat it, Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, although his platform is social democracy, nor democratic socialism. But despite that, democratic socialism, is not socialism. I know it can be hard to tell words apart, but you can do it, i believe in you.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Correct, please note that a democratic socialist is not a socialist. They are 2 very different things.Bernie Sanders literally classifies himself as a " democratic socialist "
Created:
-->
@Vader
Obama wasn't a socialist. Bernie is. Many dems aren't socialists. Biden isn't, Yang isn't a socialist
Have you heard him advocate for the state taking over all the means of production? No? Then he isn't a socialist, please stop repeating that lie.
Congratulations, you've learned to read. You now know he is a "democratic socialist" not a "socialist". They are 2 very different things.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Like how the snapshot before 2016 election had literally swing states deciding who wins and that happened. What is your point?
my point is we are a long time away from the election and no one is vetting Biden. He has a closet full of skeletons and no one is really pointing them out because they don't want the media piling on them for being mean. Trump is going to shine a spot light on them. So people look at biden today and think well he was obama's VP, he can't be that bad. But if he won and all the dirt starts being used against him, that will change.
I was talking about polling yet you just can't help yourself but attack Biden? What is your problem?]
I'm not sure I understand. We were having a conversation about biden when you chimed in about his polling. The logical inference was that you were also talking about biden. I interpreted your message to mean you thought Biden has the best chance of winning, when it is the exact opposite. I was explaining why biden has the worst chance of beating trump.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Polling as him as the best chance at beating Trump. You best bet is to support a women Warren or a gay man Pete. It should be obvious why polling has them losing, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out when I have already told you what I think are the main reasons.
That polling is a snap shot of right now. And every candidate on the stage is too afraid of looking mean to point out Biden's many, many flaws. Do you think trump is going to be afraid to do that? No, trump is going to rip Biden a new one and the shots are going to land because they are true, or at the least they have enough truth in them to stick.
Biden can't beat trump once the knives come out and his closet full of shitty things starts coming out. Not to mention his very obvious mental decline. Trump will run circles around Biden.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
No, are you kidding? Do you know what affirmative act is?
yes, do you have a point?
Eh, she probably won't get elected anyways.
She has really damaged her support. She tanked her medicare plan and now engaged in an dickish smear attack on her "close friend". I don't think she can come back now.
Nice ramble, took the words right out of my mouth. And that's why I support biden as a candidate, because he'll definitely lose to trump. And if he doesn't... Well then we have weed legalization.
Ah, so you want the most corrupt and incompetent regime in american history to continue. Gotcha.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Obama was like the most leftist president ever
Are you kidding, he was only slightly to the left of the republicans. He pretended to be progressive to get elected, but then ruled from the center. Take Obamacare, his quintessential policy. He took that from the republicans, it was a right wing plan created by a right wing think tank.
that fighting for women's rights bs is only to farm votes warren is probably actually a feminist and do something.
Sanders has been fighting for women's rights for decades. He has been consistently in favor of women's rights for a long, long time. Warren is inconsistent all the time. One day her kids went to public schools, oh wait it was private schools. One day she is "with bernie" on medicare for all, then she is basically just pitching Pete's plan.
While I don't really like feminists they're better than sanders who'll probably die halfway through his term while making america into a giant refugee camp.
I don't even have a response to this heavily biased opinion with no reality anywhere in it.
Hm? You don't support biden? Why?
why would I? He is a corporatist sellout. He and his family have used his career for personal profit in a legal, but scummy way. He can't remember what state he is in, what Obama's name is, he rambles about sending social workers into the homes of black people because they don't know how to take care of their children and about how black children play with his leg hair, he fully supported the war in Iraq and wanted to be there "for a long time". The list of reasons why Biden is a terrible candidate are a mile long. He would almost certainly lose to trump. I think Biden is the worst candidate. Although Butigeg is pretty terrible too.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
They called Obama a socialist and he was only slightly to the left of the republicanspft lol
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'd rather a feminist in the house then sanders.
why? Sanders was fighting for women's rights when Warren was still a republican.
But we all know that biden'll probably win.
It's getting alot closer. Recent polls suggest Sanders now has a good shot. But I agree, Biden is sadly still in the lead.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What do I know about socialism? I know that in the name of socialism governments slaughtered thousands of bishops and priests, demolished churches, and starved, tortured, and killed 50+ million of my people in the last century were killed.
1) the people doing that weren't actually socialists. they were dictators.
2) there are no socialists in america, certainly not any running for government.
I think I am justified in being suspicious.
You are suspicious of a social democrat because people in a different country, who believed in a completely different ideology that happened to have a similar name, did bad things? I don't think that is justified in any way. It's like saying "tree" sounds like "treason" so all trees are evil.
Socialists and social democrats are nothing alike. To pretend they are means you are either ignorant of what those terms mean, or you simply don't want to understand and just want to throw around insults. Which is essentially choosing to remain ignorant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If That's your idea of a predictable government, I have some swamp land to sell you.
i never claimed trump is predictable. He is a narcissistic child with the nuclear codes. What he is though, is predictably greedy and corrupt. If you can convince him something will benefit him personally, he will go for it. Whether it is smart, good for the country, or even legal, is completely irrelevant to trump. Since the corrupt politicians and billionaires want to make the rich richer, that is a really easy sell.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
All socialist countries call themselves democracies and republics.So I don't really get the distinction.
They are all different things. A socialist is basically a communist. They want the government (or the people) to collectively own the means of production. So all factories, mines etc would be government owned and run.
Social Democracy is basically capitalism, but with government rules and regulations in place to make sure things are fair and society in general benefits from it.
They are extremely different concepts, but fox news (and other right wing news sources) just like to call everyone a socialist.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is also the issue of energy. Voting in a caucus, especially in Iowa that has some weird silly rules, takes some time and effort. You have to take time out of your life to go and do that. If you only kinda like a candidate, are you really going to go and do that? If you are really excited by your candidate and can't wait for them to win, you are much more likely to go vote.
Joe biden's supporters are consistently low energy. They see him as safe. They like him, they might be a bit nervous about another candidate winning, but they aren't super excited to go vote for him. Sanders does not have that problem. He has, very energized supporters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Governments are predictable.Lol no they are not. Look at Venezuela.
dear lord, America is nothing like Venezuela. That is such a silly comparison.
Not to mention nobody predicted Trump was going to rock the boat for the established limousine elites in DC.
By making them all richer and cow towing to their will? Because that is exactly what he has done. Sure he talks a big game and does moronic things like declaring war on Iran, but when it comes to domestic policy, trump does exactly what the establishment republicans tell him to do. Maybe with some extra corruption thrown in.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Biden is currently winning.
is he now? That link shows that he is in a complete dead heat in Iowa. .4% is a tiny margin. There is no way to call a winner with a margin that small.
Add to that the fact that polling companies weight their polls to the people they consider most likely to vote. This usually trends towards older people who have voted in previous primaries. For a candidate like sanders, who has huge appeal for young people and people who don't usually show up for primaries, this means that alot of people who support sanders are under weighted in these polls and the older people who support Biden will be over weighted in these polls.
Take the 2016 primary in Wisconsin for example, the polling suggested he was at about 43%. He ended up getting 56.5%. In Iowa he was polling between 40% and 45% and ended up getting 49.5%. There is a very good chance that Bernie will beat the polling numbers by a couple of points, potentially 10-13 points if the Wisconsin example happened again this cycle (which i am not saying is likely). So if the polls show him tied with Biden, that isn't good news for Biden.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Bernie Sanders not being a socialist is news to me. I didn't realize this was a controversial thing.
The right wing news outlets say this pretty much constantly. So I understand why many people are wrong about this. A socialist believes that the means of production (factories, mines, etc) should all be collectively owned by the people. No politicians in america advocate for this.
Socialism quite naturally is attractive to revolutionaries. Revolutionaries tend to be throwed off about something. If socialism didn't simultaneously appeal to peoples compassion and greed it wouldn't be as attractive as it is to people.
There aren't any socialists running. Bernie sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but that is a very different thing from a socialist. And frankly, he closer meets the definition of a social democrat. Again, i can see why people get these terms wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I looked up St. Judes. They are a charity hospital that appears to only accept catastrophic cases involving children. They are able to help a tiny fraction of the people that need help. Charity is never a sustainable model. Charitable donations go up and down. You can't count on them being there from one year to the next. You cannot have a system that relies on charity or people will die. Governments are predictable. They can make sure that people get the help they need. A charity will never be able to do that.
again for as many that say it will save money there are the ones that say it won't so that is YOUR opinion as well
imagine that, studies funded by health insurance companies say that eliminating the greedy for-profit motive is bad.... that's shocking.
“any plausible effect of insurance on health status in the general population will likely be small”
and a small effect on a population of hundreds of millions will still be 10's of thousands of deaths. Not to mention 100's of thousands of bankruptcies and immeasurable misery and pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
my mistake, I don't believe it will save money and infact cost the average taxpayer more money.
that is your opinion. The facts say otherwise.
saving 10's if not hundreds of thousands of livesmy sources say that's not true at all
What sources? How could that possibly be the case. People die because they cannot get, or cannot afford healthcare. That is a fact. Medicare for all with give everyone healthcare. Therefore no one will die because they cannot afford care. We are can argue about how many lives it will save, but the fact that it will save lives is pretty much an objective fact.
you can not be denied emergency care due to lack of ability to pay, you can be denied an organ transplant you need to live.
You can be denied drugs you need to live because you can't pay. you can go bankrupt because of the absurd bill you get from the current system. People who are bankrupt are much more likely to get sicker and die since they can't afford proper food, housing etc.
St. Judes afaik doesn't require insurance and their commercials say people never get a bill, that doesn't seem to fit this need you keep using.
please provide a link. I'm not really sure what you are talking about.
maybe we need more organizations like St. Judes instead of government run healthcare?
The idea that charity can replace government care is a common refrain from the right. But the fact is that charities simply do not have anywhere near enough money to help everyone. At best they can help a small subsection of the worst cases. But the vast majority still get screwed.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How does that answer the question apart from Bernie said he didn't is enough?Do you have a source for the stuff preferably more objective one?
This is kind of part of my point. There are no sources. No one was in the room other than Bernie and Warren. It was a private conversation they had over a year ago. She has no evidence he said this. She won't even tell anyone what he said. She just makes vague implications.
Everything about this just looks bad for warren. Bernie has a long history of fighting for women's rights. There is a video of him in the 80's saying he thought women could win the presidency. He pushed Warren to run in 2016 and only ran himself when she said no. Bernie's history makes her vague accusation unlikely.
She won't even say what exactly she is accusing him of. The conversation was a year ago and the entire time since then they have been friends and allies, but a few weeks before the iowa primary when her campaign is on the decline, that is the moment she chooses to make the accusation? If she though bernie is sexist, why have they been friends for years? Why wait so long to tell anyone?
She has absolutely nothing to back it up. It reeks of desperation and it makes her look like a typical political backstabber.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you claim that throwing money at the problem will help and the links and studies I have provided does not support that, at all.
When did I say that? I said a universal healthcare system will save lives as well as saving money. That is the exact opposite of "throwing money at the problem". If anything, the current system is the "throw money at it" version as the medical industry crushes the working class while getting insanely rich.
I find these solutions rather fickle, the willingness to take people's money, spend billions and for what? to possibly, maybe save a few lives? If lives were that important then the things so easily done to prevent loss of life would be the priorities right? It doesn't sound logical otherwise.
So spending trillions less than america spends now, saving 10's if not hundreds of thousands of lives and preventing millions of bankruptcies, isn't logical? That is, by a wide margin, the more logical thing.
this universal health care is about control not saving lives which is supported by the economist and statistics.
Lol. it is about making sure that every single american, no matter how much money is in their bank account, no matter what party they vote for or what state they live in, receives the health care they need to live. It isn't about "control". It is about saving lives, saving trillions of dollars, and helping the middle and lower class. The fight against universal health care is about protecting the profits of a parasitical industry that feeds on the middle and lower class causing massive pain, bankruptcy and death. It is literally about putting money before people.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Sanders is a socialist, so he is naturally going to be surrounded by these people.
1) sanders is not a socialist. You should really get your facts straight.
2) socialists are not inherently violent.
So literally everything about that sentence is wrong.
It is something bigger than Bernie, as even he knows.
of course it is. It is a massive movement. That movement is filled by all sorts of people. Some of those people might advocate for violence. But that is not a reflection on Sanders who very much does not advocate for violence. Trying smear a candidate because some supporters of his are extremist is just a really lazy and stupid thing to do.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Is this false as in Bernie said woman couldn't win?
Bernie has said it is false and that he did not say that. Warren has remained cagey about what exactly happened. The only thing she will say is that she said a woman could win and "bernie disagreed". Maybe she means that Bernie said that trump would use it as a weapon against a female candidate. Maybe bernie meant the specific women running couldn't win (ie Warren couldn't win, not women couldn't win) it isn't clear what exactly warren is accusing him of because she won't clarify.
But the leaks from her campaign to the media were intended to make sanders seem sexist in a desperate play to boost her campaign. She used that in the debate to appeal to identity politics, basically making the argument that she is a woman, and that this is a valid reason to vote for a specific candidate. Which is dumb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
everyone having healthcare is a need because without it people will die.they will die with healthcare, that doesn't make sense.
They will die without a universal healthcare system when the current system bankrupts them or refuses them care. Medicare for all is a life and death issue. It is absolutely a need, not a "desire".
democracy is the power of the people.the U.S. is a representative republic democracy.
yes. The us is a specific kind of democracy. what is your point?
which causes more deaths, lack of insurance or obesity? I'll bet you can guess. Why aren't you asking for government intervention to stop obesity, it's the #1 preventable disease?
classic deflection. we are discussing a horrible thing and instead of engaging on the topic you go "well what about that horrible thing, look at that. if you don't look at that you are a (insert insult).
about 10x higher than reasons associated with lack of insurance (if you pick the most generous number they attempt to provide of about 40k per year)
so because people also die from another issue, we shouldn't do anything to save 10's of thousands of lives? what a shitty argument. Is your next argument going to be that people die in car crashes so we shouldn't enforce food safety regulations?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
1st, project veritas is a right wing group whose sole purpose is to spread misinformation and to smear people. I wouldn't trust anything they have to say.
2nd, this video is just stupid. They managed to find one person out of the thousands who work for the sanders campaign who believes that violence may be needed. Is that the position of Sanders? absolutely not. Is that the position of anyone on his team that actually speaks to sanders, of course not. Why do you think the opinion of some random organizer somehow reflects on Sanders or his campaign in any way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are not actually, even by your own words, one is a need the other a desire.
Well I agree that everyone having healthcare is a need because without it people will die. But i also think getting money out of government is also a need. I don't see how either of those could be a "desire" rather than a need.
do you think it's realistic to give a corrupt government more power and control with the hopes it will maybe, possibly, fixed sometime in the future?
What is the alternative? Right now we have a system that lets corrupt and greedy corporations literally kill people with little to no consequence to them while they earn huge profits. That system is horrendous. Do I believe america needs a universal healthcare system to fix that, absolutely. Does money in politics also have to be address, definitely.
even if Sanders were elected he won't be president forever, nothing he could do could permanently get the money and influencers out of government,
That isn't an argument in any way. Literally nothing is permanent. If you stripped power from the government that wouldn't be permanent either. Things are always changing. That is not an acceptable reason to leave things in a broken state.
this is why the power has always meant to be with the people.
democracy is the power of the people. You are arguing that power should be taken away from the body that represents the people and handed over to the rich where the people get no say. That is the exact opposite of power being with the people.
Over time they have taken that power and will never give it up. As long as people are willing to be dependent on the government they will maintain that power, it can never be otherwise.
The government has taken on additional roles because they needed to and people wanted them to. it is in the best interest of the people that they do so.
think about it, whatever you are dependent on, rely on has power over you.
what is your point? There will always be people that have power over you. Do you want those people to be elected members of a government that you have a say in picking or do you want it to be a billionaire oligarch that you have no ability to influence in any way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the size of the magazine has very little to do with the type of gun. I can easily put a 30 round mag in a wooden Ruger Mini 14, which has never been classified as an assault weapon, and I can easily put a 5 round mag in an AR-15.
I never claimed that the magazine size determined the type of gun. I said it was directly related to their capacity to kill people. A 30 round mag has no purpose other than to kill people. It is completely unnecessary.
Secondly, hunting isn't the only use of a firearm. A 30 round mag can be very useful for sporting or self-defense against multiple assailants.
If you don't need a 30 round mag to shoot at anything in the real world, then why would you need one in a "sporting" environment? And even if you did, fine. A shooting range can own 30 round mags, but they can never keep them or use them outside of the range. problem solved.
as for self defense, we are right back to the primary purpose of the mag, killing people. but your point is kind of dumb. If the assailants have guns and the person engaging in self defense have guns, you get a blood bath. Everyone is much, much safer and better off guns are not part of the equation at all.
Thirdly, your subjective opinion that such guns are designed to kill humans because of the most common magazine sizes used in those guns has nothing to do with the objective fact that they are designed for civilians.
They are designed for shooting people. Whether the shooter is military or civilian is irrelevant for the people designing the gun. They just want to sell their guns.
What do you mean by "kill humans"? No, that is neither rhetorical nor a mockery. I'm dead serious. If one counts justified self-defense as "killing humans", then every gun on the face of the planet is designed for "killing humans".
Not true. A many guns are designed for hunting and that is perfectly fine. But a handgun, an AR15 etc are exclusively designed for killing people.
However, I think we can agree there is nothing wrong with self-defense.
I never said there was. People have the right to defend themselves. What there is a problem with is the millions of killing machines being sold and used in america under the guise of "self defense" when the majority of them never, ever get used for that purpose. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
Speaking more generally, there are a lot of people who need handguns and 30 round mags. For instance, a single mother in a high-crime neighborhood - or, for that matter, anyone in a high-crime neighborhood - would find such weapons very useful.
Would she? Statistically, if she has a gun she is much more likely to be killed. She would be much better off if neither she, nor the criminals had easy access to guns.
Finally, what do you mean by rapid succession? The semiautomatic weapons that the law bans can only fire one shot per trigger pull.
Semi automatic weapons have the ability to kill a large number of people in rapid succession if they can fire 30 round mags. I mean they can fire a significant number of bullets in a matter of seconds. If they only had, for example, 5 round mags, then their ability to kill people would be drastically reduced by the added need to reload.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Would you be in favor of banning hammers/blunt objects? They kill more people than rifles
A hammer is a tool that's primary purpose is to construct things. It can also be used for violence, but that isn't what it is made to do. An AR15 or a handgun is made for the express purpose of killing humans. It has no other purpose. It is a tool of death and nothing else. To say that they are the same is incredibly disingenuous.
What about banning fists and feet? They kill above 50% more people than rifles do. Are you in favor of cutting off feet and hands to prevent those deaths?
This is a pathetic argument meant to distract from the issue. People are always going to fight. Sometimes that results in deaths. If those people fighting have a gun it results in many more deaths. If those people who killed with their fists had been holding a handgun, alot more people would be dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
we certainly agree money needs to be taken out of government and the awful influence it has. I don't think that will happen to any real degree in out life time. However until that happens you seem to be willing to hand them more power over you, become more dependent on government where I am not.
The 2 things are integrally linked. We need to fight for cleaning up government and getting money out of politics at the same time we are fighting for universal health care. Letting one evil continue indefinitely while we fight a different, but closely related evil, is a bad plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Government isn't the middle man. The voter is.
Government is currently the middle man between the rich and their control of the country. They pay off the politicians. The politicians do what they want. If we tie the hands of the government, then they won't have to use the government to have that power any more. They can just take it for themselves. IE you are cutting out the middle man in them controlling you.
The only power the rich get comes from government by force and consumers by consent.
The power the rich have comes from their money and their influence. They use that to get what they want. If you prevent the government from controlling those rich people, then they will just be able to do whatever they want and that is a very bad thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Asking for even more government power is a sure-fire recipe to invite even more levels of cronyism from the rich and more exploitation.
and hamstringing the government is a sure fire way to cut out the middle man and just give the power directly to the billionaires. At least when the government has that power the people can push to make changes. If you got your way and handed that power to billionaires, american democracy would just turn into an oligarchy.
Created: