The blindness? There's corruption everywhere. If you truly believe Trump is interested in investigating corruption, you're completely blind. He was looking for dirt on an opponent. Period.

Is Hunter Biden corrupt? I'm sure of it. But that wasn't my point. See the blindness.

Investigating corruption. What a joke. Suddenly Trump, the most corrupt in history, is interested in corruption? Please.

Yeah, everyone buys that you're the judge and jury while quoting a book of superstition from savage ages.

Easy to ignore.

I mentioned him. Looks like he'll win. Good for him. Seems like a decent guy and campaigned hard. It was very close and not all the results are in but if he wins he wins.

You misinterpret this how?

Yes, as I just mentioned. So you WEREN'T saying the phrase was taken from Warren? Just that it was a favorite phrase of hers. Fine. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was at all relevant to the discussion. Who cares what Warren said? What does it have to do with Trump?

Either clarify what you meant or move on. I'm bored.

Nate Silver's model expected Biden to do poorly in Iowa, but well nationally, like the polls. — Pfhorrest

I'll say it again: the Iowa polls showed Biden doing well.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

I don't know who was saying Biden wouldn't do well in Iowa. Look at the polls -- he was either leading or in second place for most of them. Looks like he'll finish 4th or so. Regardless of how it plays, that alone tells you something.

Bloomberg might "rescue" them? No thanks. I'll stick with Bernie -- he's actually saving the party, despite the propaganda.

Does anyone know when they next plan to release the rest of the results?

I don't think so. Once the full results come in, it'll get out there how poorly he did. The media may downplay it. The fuck-up only helps Biden for a couple of days tops, in my view.

I'm surprised by how poorly Biden is do, given all the polling. Not even third place (so far). I hope that's a little "fuck you" to the DNC and the media.

I think there's definitely a bias against Bernie, beyond question. But the way they have (and continue) to screw him has been "subtle" in the media, or at least more so than rigging election results. The superdelegate rule, remember, was changed because of Bernie. We can't have it both ways. But your point is taken regardless. Playing Devil's advocate a bit today.

God bless our straightforward and democratic elections.

OK...but why don't the delegates line up with the votes?

Wall Street Journal: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
NY Times: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
Washington Post: Buttigieg 26.9% and in the lead.

All with 62% of precincts reporting.

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but boy is it irritating.

Let's not buy into conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence to support such claims.

As silly as it is that Iowa is the first state to caucus, and that they can't seem to pull off the ONE thing they should have made fool-proof, making unsubstantiated, from-the-gut conspiratorial accusations makes us look like the Trump crowd.

What's deemed "illness" or "disorder" in psychology isn't well defined, nor is "abnormal." It's not pinned on one thing. Of course anything considered to be causing suffering or impeding well-being in some way usually deviates from a statistical mean -- but so what?

I don't see your point here.

Yeah, you did:

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.
— creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system."
— Xtrix

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

I don't know how this can be interpreted in any other way given the context, short of you irrelevantly pointing out that Warren also used the phrase -- but I don't know why you would do that. Or, perhaps, you're truly unsure that Bernie used that phrase during the '16 election? If that's the case, fine -- but then it kind of undermines your credibility, despite your general thesis being an accurate one.

She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.

It could be that both use(d) the phrase...

Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend. — creativesoul

There were many people using that phrase. I've been using it for 20 years. It's irrelevant. I doubt Donald Trump was listening to Warren. We're talking about the 2016 election. When Bernie generated massive crowds and enthusiasm, Trump noticed and took some of his rhetoric. That's fairly obvious.

You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous.

Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc. — creativesoul

True, but he particularly uses the term regarding the economy.

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter.

How hard is it to direct a caucus?

Maybe this stupidity will be the death knell for Iowa, a state with no reason for being the first.

Touche.

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't. — creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." Trump wanted to appear to be an outsider running against the establishment, and saw the excitement of the Bernie crowd. He also said over and over how badly Bernie was being screwed. Since it was a rare moment of telling the truth, you have to question the motives -- in this case, it was to sow discord in the Democratic party. He even encouraged Bernie to run as an independent, if you recall. I think we all know why that was.

How's everyone leaning now? I think Biden is going to just barely pull it out, unfortunately. Second place goes to Bernie, but it'll be close.

Why should it be massive? Or what do you define massive?

Would you say in Switzerland the state intervention is massive? — ssu

Yes.

In my opinion, libertarian ideas of "free markets" is pure fantasy. They've never existed.

Another win.

If Bernie can win Iowa, his momentum will be hard to stop. Only 4 more days...

but basically many times what is called a mixed economy is actually a market economy with working institutions. — ssu

If by "working institutions" you mean massive state intervention, I agree. That's as "mixed" as you're going to find.

And so it has been when the markets work. They work far better than centralized planning of the economy. — ssu

When do markets work, in your view? Any examples? I see mixed economies, all over the world and throughout history. All involve a very strong state intervention.

No kidding? I'm not familiar with either of them, but it makes perfect sense now.

Fine. He's the all American boy. He's still dividing the Democratic party. — frank

As did Trump with the Republicans. Now it's the Trump Party. In three years. Things can change rapidly if the voters are behind a candidate. Yes, Bernie is splitting the Democratic establishment. His policies are also supported by majorities of Americans (which is often forgotten).

Taxing the wealthy makes perfect sense. We've done it before (in the US) and we had much better growth and better quality of life. Mainly the corporate sector and the wealthiest Americans should pay more. Close the loopholes and the tax havens, etc.

Also -- and this rarely gets mentioned -- tax INTANGIBLE ASSESTS. Which we don't do. We tax the interest made on them, that's all. So if you own 1 million in stocks you pay 0 dollars, 1 million dollar house you pay taxes on it. It's insane, and we know the reasons why this is the case.

Given the level of income inequality in this country (and the world), it's time to give up on these neoliberal fantasies, the fantasies of Ayn Rand, free markets, libertarianism, etc.

Tax the wealthy. It's been done before and it works. There are no alternatives, unless we can snap our fingers and change the entire economic system.

What do you actually think about how Bernie presents himself? Does he appear strong to you? — frank

About as strong as Trump does -- 70-somethings with a lot of bluster. Sure, Trump wears more makeup and is fatter -- plus he talks a good game. But all he's ever done is hide behind his money, his lawyers, and his bodyguards. Bernie knows far more about foreign policy, and he talks forcefully and with true conviction.

If you're asking who'd win in a fight -- who knows? Who cares? I suppose people do care about stuff like that, but back in 2000 it was all about "who you'd have a beer with." How'd that turn out? It's true people vote for all kinds of emotional reasons, but the point is that we have no way of figuring that out.

It reminds me of playing poker. Plenty of people play poker and make decisions based on all kinds of weird beliefs. In the long run, they're losers, and all you can do if you're a good player is make mathematically correct choices.

Bernie is the right choice, regardless of what cards come. Let's just try a non neo-liberal candidate for the first time in 50 years.

This is the one that had me laughing out loud:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html

Good. The more they push, the more Clinton talks up how unlikable he is, etc., the more he'll gain.

Frank, I'm listening. You might be right of course -- but you might be wrong, too. That's why we have to go on the only evidence we have. Just asserting "Bernie doesn't even slightly seem like 'one of us'" isn't an argument. He's done fine outside of New England, and as I've mentioned before is one of the most popular politicians in America AND was polling better than Clinton was in '16 versus Trump.

If Bernie isn't one of you, who is? Biden? Warren? Bloomberg? The argument can be made they're not one of you either, in fact more so.

Let's face it: for some people, a (D) next to your name is all it takes to be counted as an outsider. It's not like there's a magic candidate that will make people like this start looking closely at the issues and suddenly become rational.

Here come all the hit pieces now that Bernie is surging in the polls. The establishment is nervous. Articles like "Bernie Can't Win," "Running Bernie against Trump is Insane" etc. How predictable.

Two...if you were, you would be terrified of Biden...JUST AS TRUMP IS. — Frank Apisa

There's no evidence of this at all. Again, gut feelings isn't political analysis.

Biden would be a terrible candidate. Just more establishment Democrat bullshit -- exactly like Hillary.

Maybe Trump fears him, maybe not. We have no idea. Trump's an imbecile anyway, so who cares?

The rich want a very strong welfare state -- for themselves. Thus they can take huge risks and have the taxpayers bail them out, get huge subsidies at taxpayer expense, tax breaks, favorable trade legislation, etc.

Of course that isn't socialism. My point is that the people who decry "socialism" as just giving money away to poor people who don't work (the "welfare queen"), all at taxpayer expense, never seem to turn around and accuse the government of being a "welfare state" for the rich -- which in reality is what it is. So if we're calling social welfare programs for the poor "socialist", why not for the rich? That's the point. I'm not confused about the US: it's a state capitalist system.

Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.

I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term. — Frank Apisa

Very likely? I don't see strong evidence for this. I'd say he has a 50/50 shot.

It's the definition of capitalism: where those who have greater wealth than others (specifically in the form of capital) use that difference to extract further wealth from those who have less than them (with which to acquire further capital and accelerate the process). — Pfhorrest

You're getting hung up on definitions, which is the point I was making: no one in this country has any idea about these terms. Regarding your definitions, yes I roughly agree with interpreting socialism that way, but your presentation of capitalism (while true) is a minority view. Most say something about a profit-based system and private ownership. But it's all hair-splitting anyway, and really wasn't my point.

Correct, which is why I think he would have been a libertarian socialist, had he lived to see socialism become a thing at all. The libertarian socialists who came after him have long been proposing solutions to the problem of why markets in practice haven't lived up to that theoretical ideal. (Spoiler warning: it's because states, including private armies bought by capitalist robber-barons, enforcing unlimited claims to property and power to contract, undermines the actual freedom of the market, so the solution is to stop the enforcement of those illegitimate claims and powers and let the market be truly free). — Pfhorrest

I'm skeptical about the concept of "free markets" as well. A lot of fantasies about them, but very little evidence that they exist, have existed, or can exist.

Because it’s not at all socialist? — Pfhorrest

It is if you listen to Fox News. It's a welfare system. What they leave out is that it's mainly welfare for the corporate world, not the welfare queens.

Instead wealth is being concentrated in the hands of those who already have more of it, which is the opposite of socialism: capitalism. — Pfhorrest

That's not even fair to capitalism, either.

f so, that’s a product of Cold War era propaganda conflating them with command economies and free markets, respectively. — Pfhorrest

Absolutely right.

Adam Smith never advocated capitalism, just free markets. — Pfhorrest

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at.

That's a kind of capitalism, it's just state capitalism, which is the worst of both worlds. — Pfhorrest

Why not call it state socialism? You see my point -- "capitalism" and "socialism" are almost completely devoid of meaning at this point. The reality is that our economy is designed to favor concentrations of power -- whatever you call it, it's not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Of course, they're also equally unenthusiastic about Bernie, yet another old white man, despite the drastic policy differences between them. Sigh. Tribalism makes me sad. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. My thing is -- it's so early, let Bernie ride his enthusiastic core of supporters and then win over the rest once they learn a LITTLE more than "he's a socialist." I think many will like the policies.