HistoryBuff

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

I've lost interest in discussing this with you. All you want to do is reiterate that you think a single cell is a human being therefore it is wrong to terminate it. Nothing I say will dissuade you from this illogical position. The vast majority of people disagree with you so if you have your heart set on this, you are going to be disappointed.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

Markets are essentially a decision made in aggregate within a large body of buyers and sellers as to the price of a good or service. A market doesn't just randomly decide that labor (or any good) is worth less

I never claimed it was random. You can see a similar effect with racism and sexism. It isn't that the job market randomly pays women and people of color less. It is that the market is made up of people, and those people decide to pay women and people of color less. As a culture, we have come to value labor less. That culture is imprinted onto everyone who gets into business. You don't need to get everyone in business to get together and plot. But over the course of years and decades, when a culture of undervaluing labor and over valuing executives creeps in, it becomes systemic.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

What does veganism have to do with this? I am talking about human life. I am not morally opposed to taking a life in any circumstance, I believe in the death penalty and due justice.

So you have no issue with killing animals, and you have no issue with killing people. You just think that you should get to decide what the rules around killing should be and no one else should get a say. So yes, you are a massive hypocrite.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

I believe that embryo is a life, which is something defined at the moment of conception. I believe everyone has the right to life, no matter how small or developed they may be.

So you are a vegan, who strongly disagrees with wars or engaging in self defense? If you are morally opposed to taking any life under any circumstances, then I can at least respect that this is your opinion. I would still disagree with you, but I could respect your argument. However, most of the people I have seen use this argument are the same sort of people who are fully supportive of the US military and executing prisoners. So it is usually just massive hypocrisy.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/anatomyvideos/000025.htm

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

Because there is no research to prove that a fertilized egg is a cluster of cells. It simply isn't. Cells are completely different from organisms.

Organisms are made up of cells. All organisms are clusters of cells. You knowledge of biology seems to be pretty much non-existent.

In fact I was actually too generous. In the 1st 12 hours after conception, a fertilized egg is actually just 1 cell. So even calling it a cluster of cells at conception is too much. It takes several days before you could really call it a cluster of cells. Do you honestly think that a single cell should be recognized as a human being?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

If you refuse to accept this is a unique organism, then we can't have a discussion.

I have never said a fetus isn't a unique organism. I keep saying that it is. It just isn't a person.

They would both die. Simple as that. Whether a baby lives a day longer is irrelevant. When left to their own, they both die.

You are clearly missing the point. It is about whether an organism is capable of regulating itself. If it can't survive outside the womb, then it does not meet this requirement. A baby can regulate itself. It just needs to be fed.

This is just factually incorrect. Research before you make an absurd assumption like that.

I am not going to bother doing research you will ignore. You have shown no willingness to even read the things i write. You just answer some straw man argument. There is no point trying to discuss this with you as you don't actually care what I say. You will just keep repeating the same lines over and over and attacking straw man arguments.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

Then babies aren't people.

Did I not just say I didn't mean being fed? it's like you don't read my response and just respond to what you wish I had said. A baby is able to live for hours, if not days on it's own without being cared for. A fetus is not able to exist outside of the womb at all. If you removed it, it would almost immediately die. It is not able to maintain it's own basic functions, a baby can.

Well no, there is an answer. It is scientific. Life starts at conception.

That is the religious answer, not the scientific one. At the moment of conception a zygote has none of the characteristics of being a human. It has DNA and is alive. It has no organs, no consciousness, nothing we would recognize as human at all. Once you accept that a cluster of cells is not a human, then you can have a real discussion about when it becomes one. If you insist that a fertilized egg should have all the rights of a human being, then there really is no room to have any discussion.

Saying it is just a cluster of cells is foolish. Again, this is an organism, not PART of the organism.

I never denied it was an organism. I denied it was a person. A fetus is alive. It is an organism. However it isn't a person yet. And at the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells.

Why is this the criteria for a person? Just because it is at an early stage of life, where the baby is innocent and vulnerable, does not mean we should kill it.

I can see that this is not a conversation that is going to go anywhere. You clearly have decided that DNA makes something a human. Nothing anyone can say will change your dogmatic view. If you are unwilling to try to look at things from other people's perspectives, then you will never be able to have a conversation about this.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I am saying if on one side we had the NHS and on the other private insurance. That would mean medicare for all would be in the middle.

NHS is the left wing solution to the issue. No government involvement at all would be the right wing solution. Medicare for all is the middle ground between those 2 points. You appear to be arguing that since no one is advocating for a truly left wing solution, that Medicare for all is by default the left wing solution. I can see how people who want to paint it as an extreme measure would want to do that. But if you showed those people what an actually left wing policy would look like, they would probably faint.

Okay. Pete doesn't have a single player system which is medicare for all.

I'm not sure what your point is, it appears to be contradictory. Medicare for all is a single payer system. Pete doesn't want that. Therefore he is not for medicare for all. You cannot be for Medicare for All but against a single payer system.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

there's not a single person sitting in traffic for hours thinking "if only we had more babies in the world"

Do you sit in traffic and think about how to get rid of babies? That's creepy man.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/what-to-know-about-pete-buttigiegs-medicare-for-all-who-want-it-plan.html

-->

@TheRealNihilist

So just because it doesn't have Sanders on it, it isn't a medicare for all policy?
Please give me something better than that.

If the other candidates were in favor of a very similar single payer system then I wouldn't be so critical. i have no issue with them making adjustments. But to gut the system of it's primary feature is to completely change the bill. If it isn't a single payer system, then it isn't medicare for all.

If we are strictly comparing medicare for all to only the US then this is a far left position.

Incorrect. Just because no one in the US is actively pushing for the far left position doesn't make a moderate position the far left. By your logic we would just need to find a few people saying we need an NHS style system and magically it makes Medicare for all the moderate position.

Link.

Here is a link to an article discussing his plan. He essentially just wants to extend the ACA a bit further. He is not advocating for a single payer system. He wants healthcare to still be dominated by private insurance companies, though he certainly wouldn't admit to that openly.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Instead of a gay joke it could be jews being cooked in the oven. If you don't agree with nazis joking about jewish people then you shouldn't agree with this.

But if he didn't remember he was gay when he made the joke, then it is in no way way homophobic. It is just childish. You are ascribing malice to something you have no evidence that there was malice behind.

If he knowingly made a joke intended to be about his sexuality, then yes that is really shitty. If he was just making a childish joke about his name (which seems to be the case) then you are reading way too much into it. And the nazi comparison is just super over the top.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804

Wrong.
"The United States National Health Care Act or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act is a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by former Representative John Conyers "

You linked to the wrong the bill. That is a different health care bill. I believe this is the correct one.

This doesn't disagree with what I said.

Sorry, you wrote "think thanks". I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

This is wrong. When he was stating the ACA was a right wing proposal he was talking about how Republicans were for it in the past. When he was talking about the left wing position that the government provides healthcare he was comparing it to other regions.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The UK has a left wing healthcare system. Medicare for all is a compromise between than and the free market healthcare system. That is what he was saying.

He was saying that Medicare for All was the middle ground between right and left wing proposals.
No he didn't.

He literally said medicare for all was the compromise position. Are you disagreeing that he said that?

This is the problem. Instead of actually finding him against medicare for all you are assuming he is.

He released a plan that is not a single payer system. That is not medicare for all. His official campaign position is that american should not have a single payer system. I am not assuming he is against it. His official position is that he isn't for it. His official position a year ago is that he was for it.

I admitted that Bernie hasn't proposed anything socialist but you can't even admit that you have no proof that Pete is against medicare for all.

His campaign policy position isn't proof? I will admit he doesn't make statements where he will directly say he opposes it. But that is more coldly poll tested positioning. He campaigns for a slight modification of the ACA. But if he came out and said he didn't want Medicare for all, he would get roasted for it.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Jeff_Goldblum

I don't follow the race very closely, but from what I know, I have to disagree on this. I think Warren is too left of Bloomberg for any of her supporters to defect. I don't know about Mayor Booty-Geg. I think Biden, who has centrist appeal, should be most worried about Bloomberg.

This is sort of what alot of pundits have been saying. But they are kind of missing a critical point. When people are well informed about politics decides who to support, they think about which policies they like, how far left/right they are etc. But for alot of voters this isn't the case. They have no idea what the difference between Sanders and Buttigieg's healthcare plans are.

For people like that, they don't care about how left or right the politician is. Some care about 1 specific issue. Some base it on who they think is most honest or most likely to win etc. If you look at the 2nd choice for Sanders voters, alot of them would pick Biden. And the 2nd choice for most of Biden supporters is Warren or Sanders. Ideology is not as important to voters as pundits like to pretend it is.

Biden's coalition is mostly working class and black people. Butigieg is mostly upper middle class white people. Warren is alot of upper middle class white people, as well as fair number of progessives. Sanders is largely working class people, young people and progressives.

Bloomberg has no appeal to black people (he pushes stop and frisk), his policies wouldn't really help working class people and he has little name recognition among that group. This means that sanders and Biden wouldn't have much of their base that would like Bloomberg. Warren and Buttigieg's base on the other hand would have alot of overlap.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can insult him especially on things he can't change.

I think he was just making fun of the guy's name, not making a gay joke.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Can you please not do that? It is best to say things you know are true instead of finding things that you have already stated your opinion. Can you provide a link to the weaselly comment while also stating how it is weaselly?

My point was that the name of his health care plan is itself weaselly. Do you want a link that will tell you what the name is? Calling a plan that is nothing like medicare for all "Medicare For All Who Want It" is weaselly. He wants to trick people into thinking his plan is just like medicare for all but with more choice. When in reality is it nothing like medicare for all and he just wants to bank on the popularity of the name. And several of the candidates do this. I saw an interview with andrew yang where he admitted he doesn't believe in medicare for all but he pretends like he does.

Define medicare for all.

Medicare for all is the specific plan created by Bernie Sanders (I think there were others involved in writing it as well). It creates a single payer system to replace private insurance. If a plan does not do this, it isn't "medicare for all" and calling it such is a blatant attempt to confuse and misdirect people.

He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal.

His exact words in that clip are "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be caricatured as left wing". He is saying it is a right wing proposal, which it was.

He also said that medicare for all is a compromise comparing it to the UK. Meaning if we compare the UK to the US medicare for all would be in the middle instead of the left which he stated national healthcare would be at.

He was saying the "Left" position is one where the government directly provides healthcare. the "Right" position was one where it was entirely private. The compromise was a single payer system where the doctors are private but the payer was the government. He was saying that Medicare for All was the middle ground between right and left wing proposals.

Quote him being for medicare then quote him being against medicare.

"I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All"

In the video he states clearly that medicare for all, and a single payer system, was the compromise position between left and right. The healthcare plan he eventually released is nothing like medicare for all. It has no single payer system.

Do you need another sweeping declaration tweet were he says "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, that I do not believe in Medicare for All". I don't think he is dumb enough to do that. It would be political suicide. He will instead push his very much not medicare for all plan while pretending it is the same thing. Advocating a plan that does not include a single payer system is him saying he is against medicare for all.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iia_SzsbTMQ

-->

@TheRealNihilist

So for all we know Bloomberg can have no impact on the frontrunners or have an impact on the progressives right? Yes or no answer please.

yes of course. As there is no polling and he hasn't even confirmed he is entering the race this topic is purely speculative. It is entirely possible he could get no support and be irrelevant. it is possible (though highly unlikely in my opinion) that he could jump into the lead. The point was just to discuss people's opinions on the subject.

Name one weaselly statement and how is it weaselly?

Well just off the top, call his plan medicare for all is weaselly. His plan is nothing like medicare for all. It is largely the same plan as Biden. But he knows that medicare for all is popular so he takes the name and slaps in on a completely different policy. It is an attempt to confuse people.

Pete also has a variation of medicare for all.

No he doesn't. He has a public option. That is not medicare for all. It's a bit like someone saying "I will bring you guys McDonalds" then bringing back burgers made of a cat he ran over and calling it "McDonalds for all who want it". It is wildly misleading.

Do you watch the Humanist Report regularly and do you agree with his opinions?

I watch him sometimes. I don't always agree with him. For example he says Butigieg flipped for the money. I kind of doubt that. I think he just realized there was no path to winning while pretending to be a progressive because that lane was taken. So he fundamentally changed his positions on issues to try to find a way to win. He is your standard unprincipled politicians willing to say anything to get ahead.

Please quote him stating the middle ground. This is neither a direct quote by Pete nor a fair characterization of his position.

Have a look at 1:48 to 2:18. Pete used to say that medicare for all was the middle ground. That it was "the compromise position". But now he is back to advocating for something closer to what he described as "the true right wing position".

He has not done a 180 with the information you gave (I urge you to watch the video again) and it is unfair to say that he did.

You clearly didn't watch the video. He went from fully supporting medicare for all and calling it the "compromise position" between right and left, to slapping that name onto what is, in no way, medicare for all. He now attacks and undermines actual medicare for all. That is a 180.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://newengland.com/today/living/gardening/how-to-grow-oak-trees-from-acorns/

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

Being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. Babies can't survive on their own, neither can elderly people who need assistance for everything they do. Should we kill them too? A fetus is a human. Science says so. That is an objective fact.

You're right, being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. It is part of the definition of being alive. If a life form cannot exist on it's own then it shouldn't be considered a person. And i don't mean being fed. i mean not needing to be connected to another living being to be alive.

Again I ask you, what constitutes a person and why?

People have been asking this exact question for thousands of years and they will continue asking it for thousands more I am sure, assuming humans still exist that long. Pretending like I need to know the answer to a question no one can answer or I am somehow wrong is a childish argument.

How do you know it is not at conception?

Because a fertilized egg has none of the characteristics of being a person. It is just a cluster of cells.

Why is it before the third trimester?

Because in the 3rd trimester it does have the characteristics of a person. At that point if you were to remove it from the woman it has a chance of being able to survive on it's own.

Using subjective feelings on the abortion debate is not a good place to be.

I'm not using subjective feelings. You are the one attempting to use moralistic arguments.

First off, an acorn is a tree nut and acorns do not grow into trees lol.

Umm, oak trees do grow from acorns. Here is an article about how to grow them.

The question as to whether this is a baby is an irrelevant one because the bottom line is that this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things.

And an acorn will become an oak tree if nature takes it's course. But stepping on an acorn and killing a tree are not the same things. A fetus is could become a person if allowed to progress. If you prevent that progression then a human never comes into existence.

Again you have not yet even defined personhood.

The definition of personhood is "the quality or condition of being an individual person." People have been struggling with this question since the dawn of time. You are trying to argue that because I can't tell you the answer, that somehow makes you right. That is childish.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/964863858849574913?lang=en

-->

@TheRealNihilist

As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence
Care to explain this?

Bloomberg isn't officially in the race yet. I am not aware of any polling that exists that could show his popularity. It therefore isn't possible to provide evidence of how much support he has. Therefore the topic is speculative.

So the data you gave doesn't actually support what you said about Bloomberg?

The data I used was not that different from the average. I was using it just as an example. Why are you grinding on a small detail when it was only being used for a baseline? The point I was trying to get across was that if Bloomberg could take a few points from a candidate, he could potentially prevent them from getting any delegates at all. Whether you use the average or 1 specific poll, the point is the same.

Do you still want to talk about this or maybe another time?

I don't know all that much about it. To me it seems like a minor issue. It is an attempt to fix a symptom of the greater economic issues. Rather than deal with the underlying problems, politicians tried to apply a band-aid solution to hide the symptom. If you address the underlying problems in the way the US economy is working, then issues like that would be less prevalent.

Can you show him changing his mind as well?

When someone said he doesn't support medicare for all, he responded by saying.

"Buh? When/where have you ever heard me oppose Medicare for All?"

I've never linked a tweet, so let me know if this doesn't work.

When pushed, he responded with the tweet I gave last time where he declared "unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All"

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/965396700511825920?lang=en

For his current position, I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good example. He uses alot of weaselly language to try to describe his plan as just like medicare for all when it really isn't. He seems to have learned to not just declare things.

If you don't mind watching a video, i came across one that discusses this exact topic. It's mostly the 1st five minutes. The 2nd half is him discussing why he thinks he switched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iia_SzsbTMQ

He went from fully supporting it and calling it the middle ground between right and left policies, to attacking it saying it can't be paid for. He has done a complete 180.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

I never said killing is always wrong.

You said "Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed." This would include all the things I listed.

Organisms are living beings, an entity that is complete human

A fetus isn't a complete human. It is unable to survive. It is essentially a parasite.

What do you define as a human being? When is the "threshold?"

I don't claim to know the precise moment a fetus becomes a person. I know it is not a person at the moment of conception. I know that it is one the moment it is born. At some point between those 2 moments it became a person. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester.

An unborn baby is a human being. Just because it is at an early development of life does not mean it is any less.

Of course it does. An acorn is "an early development" of a tree. But it is not a tree. It is an acorn. It might one day grow into a tree, but it isn't one yet. A fetus is not a person. It might become one some day, but it isn't yet.

Think about it like this. If a person is in a coma, let's say for example, 9 months, and is not functioning in the coma but it is going to once its out of the coma, should we kill it?

Your example is irrelevant. The person in the coma crossed the threshold to become a person. They gained the rights and protections of a person. A fetus has never been a person. It has not attained personhood.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

This is even more insane though, because you're dumping huge amounts of low-skilled labor into a job market in which low-skilled jobs are shrinking.

If this were true, then they would be unable to find work. This would be driving up the unemployment rate.

My wife worked in employment until quite recently. They were constantly re-posting jobs over and over because they couldn't find employees to fill them. And yet they rarely offered higher wages. They just post the job again at the same salary.

I think that corporate culture has changed. They are no longer interested in paying a higher salary to attract workers. They frequently fire long time employees to replace them with lower paid ones with less experience. The reason wages don't rise is because the market has decided they don't want to pay more. They are willing to overwork their existing staff rather than offer a higher wage to attract new staff. Western capitalism has broken.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

-->

@Christen

I believe many polls have shown that socialist policies are increasingly very popular. Medicare for all has polled as high as 70% as I recall, though I don't have the stat handy.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

-->

@Christen

If you believe the poll is tainted, then go and check their methodology. I have done so on several polls that have been posted and pointed out flaws. However, saying that a poll must be flawed just because you don't like what it says is just allowing your bias to control you.

A small, cherry-picked sample of people does not always represent an entire population.

If you can prove that this is the case for this study please do so, if not, please stop spouting lies.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

-->

@Christen

Warren rather adroitly adopts economically populist talking points, but her voting or donation record isn't quite as rosy as her honeyed words would indicate.

Agreed. I don't believe she is progressive enough in some areas. But by comparison to the kind of candidates the Dems have been running since Clinton, she would still be a huge step forward. Bernie is still better of course.

That's because he goes out of his way to insult them, most likely.

A large part of it is that populism and socialist policies are really popular among younger people. They see that the current system is broken and screwing them over. Older people tend to be more afraid of change as they have more to lose and less time to adapt to the changes. It's also likely because he keeps insulting them and saying really stupid things.

he stubborn refusal to admit that immigration drives down wages

This is only true if there is a significant unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate is low then employers are likely still having trouble filling positions.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women

-->

@Our_Boat_is_Right

Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.

1st -We kill humans all the time. The US carries out drone strikes in lots of countries. America executes criminals. Police kill people every day. The US government kills people constantly. So pretending like killing is somehow always wrong is a little hypocritical.

2nd - A fetus isn't a human being yet. It has human DNA and is alive, but so is a tumor or a vestigial twin. A fetus might one day become a human being, but until it crosses that threshold I reject the notion that it is one and should have the protections of a human being.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

401K means Wall Street IS Main Street.

I have yet to see how it will outweigh the costs.

The costs may not always be easy to see. For example, students are being hit with large amounts of debt in order to get the training society requires. This is causing them to take years, even decades longer than their parents to become financially stable on their own. We don't know what all the effects of that even are. It is likely lowering the birth rate as people have to wait to have families. It is likely helping to drive the growing popularity of socialist policies among young people. It is alot easier to hate the current system when you need to spend a decade or two trying to get financially stable.

I don't have an NYT subscription :/
Could you link me to whatever study they reference?

Sorry about that. This is a different article. They are using different stats than the NY times one was, but many of the implications are the same. The US birth rate is too low to create growth. America needs immigrants if they want to keep their population roughly static, let alone growing.

Created:

5 years ago

1

Posted in:

401K means Wall Street IS Main Street.

-->

@bmdrocks21

Because getting rid of the trap imposes severe costs on everyone else.

Paying for primary and high school also imposes a severe cost. so do police and the military and roads etc. Having an educated population is worth the cost. That is why we already pay for schools. Instituting free college is just an extension of the policy we already have.

That really depends on if you want them "expanding the market." 51% of immigrants are on at least one welfare program, compared to 30% of natives. I don't see that as being helpful.

I don't see why that really matters.

The US population growth is the lowest it has been since the great depression. Without immigration, the US economy would barely expand at all. Do immigrants need more assistance programs in the 1st few years they are in the US, yes. But they will continue paying into the system for the rest of their lives. And their children will too. The amount of assistance they receive is minuscule considered to all the benefits they provide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/census-population-growth.html

Created:

5 years ago

1

Posted in:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/buttigieg-tweet-medicare-for-all-048745

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Why did you use the single poll in the first place?

I grabbed the most recent poll. I was using the stats only to show how many points Bloomberg would need to take to radically shift the race. Getting the most precise measure was not really the intention. It was just meant as an example of how he could shake up the race.

Why did you use the single poll in the first place?

I wasn't using the poll to show what the current state of the race was. I was only using it as a baseline for my point that Bloomberg could torpedo the moderates.

You can infer what you like. You simply looked at one data from the link instead of looking what the data is about. An average not a single poll. That is false.

Are are incorrect. I said " A recent poll" and then gave what the numbers for that poll were. You said that was false, which isn't true. That is what the most recent poll says. You are implying that I am wrong or a liar, neither of which was true. If you dispute the poll, then say so. Don't go after me for using it.

I knew what socialism meant but could've sworn Bernie said something towards that.

Many people say that about him. Basically every major news network has. He calls himself a democratic socialist I think. But it isn't really the same thing.

This is all I need. What do you think about rent control?

I haven't done much research on the topic. From what I have read it has a positive goal in mind, but the method isn't working well. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

Can you link this?

Here is a link to an article about. I think I said it was a few months ago but it was a little longer than that. He put out a tweet in Feb 2018, the text of which is:

"I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered," Buttigieg tweeted in February 2018. "Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await."

His entire tone has changed over the course of the race. He started out trying to take a progressive stance. But as it became clear he couldn't beat Bernie and Warren on the left, he moved to a right wing stance. He is the quintessential politician saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. I honestly don't know what he really believes in.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

What did I say?

You asked if bernie leans socialist. He does not advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. And he advocates for regulation, like all politicians do. So does he lean socialist? He does in the same way as the rest of the democratic party does. If he is a socialist, so is the rest of the dems. Personally, I don't think he nor the dems are socialist.

I used the word "lean". Meaning he doesn't have to be a full-blown socialist to be leaning towards to it. Now I have clarified that. Would you like to make a response?

He leans that way the same way that every other democrat and most of the republicans do. He advocates for regulation.

Are you even going to attempt to argue against what I said?

Why would I? I acknowledged that was a legitimate point. I am not attempting to dispute that an average is better than a single poll.

Quote me saying that please.

I gave exact stats. You said "False". If what I said was untrue then the logical inference is that I am lying.

I'll stop calling a socialist. Sorry.

Thank you, many people use vague or incorrect terminology. I am not immune from this either, i am not trying to blame you. I think it would be more productive to not use labels like socialist since they don't accurately describe anyone running for president.

What do you value?
Why do you support Bernie?

I think that a government exists to protect and provide services to it's people. As a society we need the ability to get around, so the government builds roads. We need our people to get an education, so the government builds schools. A government clearly cannot, and should not, be responsible for everything. The soviet union and China (though they were never communist) proved that a government controlled economy could not work.

I don't always agree with everything Bernie Sanders says. But his policies are much better than most others. He is also much more honest and straight forward than most of the other candidates. Take buttigieg for example, a few months ago he said he was all for medicare for all, now he is campaigning hard against it. Sanders has been advocating for the same positions for decades. He can be trusted to do what he says he will. People like buttigieg cannot.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

CNN and misleading headlines

-->

@Swagnarok

Even if it's mainly the Democrats' fault. As is the case here.

I did a bit of reading into the background of the bill. It was pushed hard by Jared Kushner (trump's son in law). Trump then endorsed it and pressured republicans in the senate to pass it. The trump administration was pivotal to this being passed.

While the article's content is nuanced enough, it has a provocative headline, and if the reader doesn't bother to click on the article (opting instead to only read the headline) it'll leave exactly the impression that the media is hoping for.

While I agree that the title is intending to lead to a specific narrative, the title is accurate.

The reason why they'd frame it this way is obvious: anything that pushes the long-running narrative of the Trump administration being riddled with incompetency and failure they will say gladly.

The trump administration IS full of incompetency and failure. While I don't agree that this is one of those cases, it is easy to see why they would think it is.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Imabench

Even if Bloomberg puts a billion dollars on the table to fund his own campaign, at this point its still too little too late

Bloomberg has a bigger profile than Styer. Because he owns bloomberg news, alot of upper middle class people will know him. He is also active in donor circles so there is the threat than donors might abandon other candidates in favor of him. That could hit butigeg or biden.

There is also the threat that his entrance would be the proverbial blood in the water for Biden. The only reason Bloomberg would enter is because he thinks Biden can't win. If the media picks up on that narrative it could undermine support in Biden. Biden's main selling point is the idea that he can beat trump. If he loses that he would be in trouble. It is far from certain Bloomberg would have that kind of political weight though.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?

The definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.".

Bernie has never advocated for the means of production being owned by the state. Virtually all politicians agree that the government should engage is some level of regulation of them, so if Bernie is a socialist, so is pretty much every politician.

An average would be better because the Q poll could've been the outlier compared to all the other polls. That is why I used an average instead put forward one poll.

And that is a totally reasonable argument to make. I can respect that answer. Calling me a liar on the other hand is not an acceptable answer when what I said was true.

Are you blind? I am sure you are not. Where is the link? You don't have evidence if you don't cite your sources.

I provided the exact numbers. The link you gave me was the exact same website though, so clearly you already had it. But if you want the link then please just say so. Engaging in personal attacks just derails the discussion.

Answer my question so I know that you stated you are one. Are you a socialist?

No, I do not believe that the means of production should be owned by the state.

You are not providing evidence because you haven't cited your sources.

Providing the exact numbers is evidence whether or not I provide the link. I agree though, I should have sent the link. But it was the top result in the link you gave me, so you clearly knew where to look.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ILikePie5

You have yet to answer my question from another thread: Is the primary obligation of the President to American citizens or illegal immigrants?

Citizens, obviously. But since US citizens want the government to also take care of immigrants, pretending like taking care of immigrants is somehow not taking care of citizens is a ridiculous right wing talking point. One is opposed to the other.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

That's all that matters. It's the reason JFK is remembered for preventing armageddon.

So trump almost caused the deaths of millions, but you want to paint that as saving lives? You know that's crazy right? Just because the madman didn't pull the trigger, doesn't make it ok that he was about to pull the trigger.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I want to trash socialist/commies.

There aren't any socialists or commies in this election. Either you don't know what those terms mean or your bias is causing you to use them incorrectly.

Pete is at 17. Bernie 15.8. Biden 15.5. This has got to be bernie logic or maybe you have sources but refuse to lose them. Just don't expect me to not state that you are arguments are based on feelings.

Please actually read the things I write before saying they are false. I said "a recent poll". You then listed the average of polls for the last month. The most recent poll is the Quinnipiac poll done on October 30th. Those numbers are from that poll. So what I said was true. Also, I provided evidence and then you attacked me because this was just "feelings". Maybe you should reflect on how your bias is affecting your arguments. just a thought.

I wasn't talking about Bloomberg. I was talking almost every single time before the first time I told you to bring evidence.

I think you just don't want to accept any information you don't like. I mean I just provided you exact numbers from a poll done a week and a half ago and you attacked me for not using evidence. I'm not certain any amount of evidence would be enough to prevent you from descending to using personal attacks to try to deflect the conversation.

Poor more than likely stupid. \

If your only method of debating someone is to go to ad-hominem attacks, you just come off as someone either so biased that they reject information outside their bubble, or as someone who is too stupid to understand information they are provided. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter. But it could be either.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Wishing the worst on someone is the nadir of humanity.

What are you talking about? Trump was minutes away from starting a war that would have killed millions. I don't wish that he had done so. I am very glad it didn't happen. But trying to paint Trump as a guy who wants to prevent wars is ridiculous. He was about to start one and only pulled back at the last second.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Comparatively, Trump has killed far fewer than Obama in Obama's 1st term

You are comparing apples to oranges. The situation has changed a great deal between obama's 1st term and Trump's. But please don't mistake this as a defense of Obama. All in all he was kind of a shitty president.

He also has not actually started any armed conflicts to date.

Not for lack of trying. He had ordered an attack on iran and called it off at the last minute. He was literally minutes away from triggering a new war in the middle east.

I'm actually okay with more drone strikes if it ends the conflict Obama started.

What conflicts did Obama start? He inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from the republicans.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Nothing in the rules said I can't and I want too.

It's not like there is a formal rule list. But it was not really related to what the topic was about. If you just want to trash progressives then this isn't really the right topic.

Whatever it is he is unlikely to win so the votes will just go back to the people he took from.

But will they? In Iowa for example, A recent poll puts Warren at 20, Buttigieg at 19, Sanders at 17 and Biden at 15. If you are under 15 you are a non-viable candidate and you get nothing. If, for example, Bloomberg was able to take 1 point from Biden, 5 points from Buttigieg and 6 points from warren, then he could theoretically leave Sanders as the only viable candidate making him get all the delegates. That isn't a super likely scenario, but it is just meant to highlight how he could screw over the centrist candidates and leave a progressive to win.

Is evidence not a word you understand? Please do use it because you are simply doing this based on your feelings until you can support your claims.

As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence. This post is purely speculative. Please calm down. If you think i'm wrong, please explain who you think he is likely to appeal to or what his path to victory could be?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in: