This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that? — Relativist

Of course, as I have from the beginning. I said from the beginning that that was a very reasonable position to take. But that was not what the narrative was when Bernie looked like he was winning the nomination, and not what you claimed either. You said you agreed that Bernie wasn't electable, which is what the DNC was pushing all along and which, as has been shown, is nonsense. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's not a trivial distinction. To say Bernie was "unelectable" implies he would lose to Trump which, when you look at the only good evidence we have, clearly isn't true. To say Biden is 1% ahead of Bernie in national polls, and voting for him because of it, is a very different position.

Florida (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there. — Relativist

Very true.

By the way, it's more helpful (I think) to look at polling averages, as they do fluctuate.

Given this, Trump leads Florida over Biden by 1.3%.

Biden leads Trump in PA by 3.8%, Michigan by 4.8%, North Carolina 3.4%, Arizona 3.8%.

They're tied in Wisconsin.

That's not bad, so far. I'd like those to be much, much higher, but at least it's competitive. Also, surprisingly, in Texas, Trump is up on average 2.6%. That's really big news for the Democrats.

Joe should focus on Pennsylvania and Michigan, especially, and then Florida. If he puts in time in AZ and NC, then I think he has a good shot of winning, given Trump's unpopularity. But you never know what happens between now and November. So far, this coronavirus response is not helping him. His base won't leave him, but independents will. And they're the ones who swung the election.

Polling can be a tool for a very specific purpose. The questions can be asked in very specific ways to a very targeted audience. The results can then be custom tailored to suit the needs of those using them as evidence to influence public narrative and/or beliefs.

That's the reality.

Prior to placing any value, any confidence, or basing any belief upon polling results, there are some questions that need to be answered.

What were the exact questions asked and in what order and/or context? How were the participants chosen? — creativesoul

Are you denying that what I wrote is true? — creativesoul

I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.

So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed.

Bernie's looking good in this debate. I don't see it changing things, but I'm glad it happened.

Yes, and please do.

You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of).

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

I wouldn't consider personal finance trivial. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not what I said.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair."

This is fine, with the exception that you need to be careful in cases where you disenfranchise one group to empower another. I'm fine with making plenty of things more fair, but we just need to talk about the specifics and how its implemented. — BitconnectCarlos

Sounds good to me. And I myself am not particularly worried about the 0.01% of the population who will be "disenfranchised."



No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

I am curious as to why you think my idea is so outlandish when Hillary's name is in the news every single day, — fishfry

It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me. — fishfry

Ugh. Come on.

Medicare is a government-run program.
— Xtrix

Medicare is a public/private partnership. — fishfry

Medicare is a government-run program. This should be simple stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Administration

Of course there will be involvement with private hospitals and private insurance, to a degree.

You've made it clear you're not interested in learning anything "in detail," so why bother?

Saying I should "do my homework" is childish -- either you have an argument based on evidence, or you don't.
— Xtrix

Or, as I've stated, I haven't sufficient interest in the topic of health care policy to drill down another level of detail. — fishfry

So you don't. You might have stated this clearly from the beginning and not waste my time.

What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. — Relativist

Yet this is the only reliable evidence we have. Do you admit this or not?

Looking at polling aggregates is important. Yes, there is variation and margins of error. But overall, polling is very predictive and accurate. What do you really understand about polling? Do you understand the process behind it? The statistics behind it? If you do, then you'll realize how important they are. In that case, why the qualifications and skepticism about certain polls and not others? Notice Trump is doing the same thing: a poll comes out that's somewhat favorable to him, he'll tout it. If not, he'll point out how inaccurate polling is, and will give specific examples (his favorite, of course, is the 2016 election).

Polling isn't the only evidence, but when it comes to elections it's the best singe piece of evidence we have.

The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads. — Relativist

I'm sure you're aware that this comparison has also been made in the media, many times. Before even getting into it, is this historical fact (and parallels) MORE important that polling data, or less? Again, I would argue FAR LESS. Why? Well look at the polling in 1972. What did the polls say. Not "what did enthusiastic, young-spirited, idealistic liberals" think and feel, but what did the data show? Did they take good polls back then? Did they have statistical tools? Turns out, they did. So what did the polls say? I'll let you look them up yourself, if you're interested in doing so. Don't take my word for it.

But assuming my claim is true about polls AND your comparison is also assumed to be accurate in that there are striking parallels (which I agree with, BTW) to McGovern's and Bernie's campaigns, what would our prediction be? We already know the outcome, of course, but that's beside the point. I would conclude that any kind of "landslide" victory would show up in polling prior to it happening -- if polling is worth anything at all, it should at least do that. Turns out, it did. Again, you can look up the numbers yourself -- this isn't controversial.

So McGovern was Bernie in 1972, with polling indicating he would lose handily to a popular incumbent.

Switch gears to 2020, where polling indicates Bernie slightly ahead of Trump, averaging 5 percentage points. Maybe 3 polls show Trump winning, by no more than 5 points, in over six months and, in fact, show only Bernie winning since late January.

Biden averages 6.4 percentage points.

Republicans are much more likely to say "the polling is biased," Bernie people will perhaps say the same thing because he's not polling as well as Biden is nationally. But they are what they are. Do we argue that every credible polling source -- Pew, Gallop, major newspapers, etc., when taken as an average, are all biased? No. It's the best information we have.

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden. — Relativist

Sorry, but this is anecdotal.

Now you want to say that the reason it's popular is because of the private aspect of it, or otherwise "people would hate it." Heads I win, tails you lose.
— Xtrix

Yes, that is exactly the case. Straight Medicare would be very unpopular. It doesn't pay enough benefits and it offers no flexibility. It's the private component that makes it work. You should do your homework on this issue. What I state is well-known fact. — fishfry

I am very skeptical about this. What is the evidence? What are the well-known facts? Saying I should "do my homework" is childish -- either you have an argument based on evidence, or you don't. If you do, then give the evidence and cite your sources, and I can check them myself. Otherwise no, you're not a credible source. I've already cited polls that show medicare is popular. Medicare is a government-run program. Case closed until further evidence is admitted, not simply your feelings on the matter and vague allusions to "common knowledge."

Socialism is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. — fishfry

You lose credibility when saying things like this.

Christianity is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. Responsible for far more deaths.
Capitalism is the most brutal system ever imagined. Likewise, far more resulting deaths.

Better arguments could be made for just these alone. But I don't go around saying silly things like that.

If we're looking to actually help individuals our focus should tend to be on microeconomic decisions as opposed to macroeconomic ones. If you're a financial advisor and a struggling person comes into your office it makes more sense to have them write up a budget and analyze their goals than to blame NAFTA or deregulation. I'm not discounting these... but again, start with the small first and then work your way up. Do not gloss over the small and immediately resort to the big when analyzing individuals. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

Yes, of course it's more helpful to give people concrete advice for their specific (microeconomic) problems. Also, like I said before, there's no sense in me giving lectures about macroeconomics or history or class struggles to someone who simply needs a job. My efforts would be much better spent helping him look for and find a job, in that case.

you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

Oh of course it is but so is life itself. There's no "system" on earth that's fair and I don't quite know what fair would look like. Sure, I'm with you that the war on drugs is unfair. Lets scrap it. — BitconnectCarlos

Why scrap it? -- life is just unfair, and that's the way it is. No?

I think this could be an interesting point of discussion; what do you do with this fact concerning the unfairness of life itself? — BitconnectCarlos

I'll have to pull a Socrates and pick on the word "fair," in this case. You're sounding a bit like Thomas Hobbes to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I'd like to think that humans are fundamentally good, and I see a lot of evidence that suggests this. That we're sociable creatures, that we care for one another, that we wish to live good lives, etc. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that suggests the opposite, too.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair." Sure, that's true, but no less true than it's simply unfair. All that means is that we have got to currently navigate a human-created, unfair system. We should do it with strength, hard work, courage, etc. -- not whining, not using the unfairness as an excuse to be lazy and victimized, but nevertheless with a clear understanding that the game has, in fact, been rigged.

We play anyway. There's not much of a choice, in my view. Nor is there much of a choice to play it rationally and aggressively. But by keeping this unfairness in mind, and understanding it clearly, we perhaps can change the game itself from the inside or, perhaps, eventually create an entirely new game altogether.

Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy. — Relativist

I've never proposed any conspiracy theories. You attributed that to me. What the DNC has done I suppose could be considered conspiracy, but in my mind that involves a group of people plotting things out secretly. The DNC has been very honest and vocal about their opposition to Bernie, and have stated their reasons. That's really not a conspiracy.

In terms of accepting the possibility of your position, see my prior response. It's not about whether it COULD be correct -- sure it could. But the rationale behind your decision or your position is very important. If based on clear reasoning and evidence, I have no problem with it even if it turns out to be wrong. But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification.

And I think you represent, unfortunately, a large group of like-minded individuals. I think it's a really big mistake, and I think it's a result of what's essentially DNC and media propaganda, not objective reasoning. But I hope the outcome turns out to be favorable anyway, even if the reasoning is, in my judgment, faulty.

You're right about the hard data, and I admit I'm giving you my sense of things - my opinion. Nevertheless, I provided the reasoning behind my opinion. You may disagree with my analysis, but you haven't actually shown I'm wrong. — Relativist

Of course you could very well be right. So could I. But, as you know, we settled things with the available information, with evidence. We can both speculate all day, I'm sure -- but that's like two people playing a game and neither knowing the probabilities of various outcomes.

In our case, I'm not basing my opinion on what I feel or believe on this particular topic (electability), but what the data actually says. Polling is that data -- it's the best data we have. If you want to talk about polling accuracy, history, statistics, etc., then that's a different topic.

But if you do agree it's the best evidence we have thus far (at least pertaining to the question of whether Bernie is "electable" in the sense of beating Donald Trump -- of being elected President), then you clearly see that Bernie is, in fact, electable.

You may claim that it's the voters who have decided, and that's really the best evidence. This is where I disagreed. But I'm only correct if, in fact, this "electability" issue is true. Much of the polling seems to suggest that it is -- i.e., that most Democratic voters were voting for who had the "better chance of beating Trump." Now "better chance" may be different than "who's electable" -- maybe these voters see that both Bernie and Biden poll well against Trump, and are thus electable, but Biden does better. If that's the case, that's a reasonable position if the polling in fact suggests it (and some of it does, particularly in Florida -- a very key state -- and Pennsylvania, although I hope someone corrects me if this has changed). But that's not what the DNC, media pundits, editorials, and even yourself seem to be emphasizing.

You ignored my response to you, which mentioned -- and I repeat -- that the only hard data we have (this does NOT include your "feelings"-based analysis of who has the better chance) shows that Bernie beats Trump, sometimes more than Biden, sometimes less. The question was about the electability of Bernie, which is in large part what the argument of the DNC was. That's shown over and over to be nonsense. The DNC simply wants to choose their person, and that was long ago made for Biden.

Side note: the fact that Bernie even came as close as he did is a shocker, given the party he was running in didn't support him. Worth keeping in mind.

But if it's Biden, fine. Maybe he wins, maybe not. He's got as good a chance as Clinton, I suppose. Hopefully he's smarter about his campaigning, hits the swing states more, capitalizes on his likability and Obama's association, and starts appealing to younger and more progressive voters.

Bernie's policies turn more people off than does Biden's. — Relativist

Even if that's true, it's far from saying he's "unelectable." But it happens that it's precisely the opposite: most people love his policies. Even the most controversial, and the one that's garnered the most attention, Medicare for All, has a slight majority support.

Bernie has plenty of liabilities -- like black voters, moderates, etc. He's got to address that. But as I said, if they weren't being told by their own party that he's "unelectable," they would vote differently. They're being told to vote for Biden, essentially, on the grounds that Bernie is unelectable. Which was originally the point -- you said you felt the same way and saw nothing to contradict that belief. I think everyone here, including myself, has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. Which you've ignored.

So who's really putting on blinders here?

WSJ op-ed page already using the opportunity to claim that Britain and Italy are struggling with the virus because...wait for it...government is TOO involved with healthcare!

If only we lived in a world where literally everything was privatized, in the hands of big corporations. Nothing would go wrong with those smart people in charge.

Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable."
— Xtrix
I am one of them, and I see good reasons to think it's true, and haven't seen good reasons to think otherwise. Got any? — Relativist

Yes, the ones I mentioned. Based on the only evidence we have -- not pundit speculation and "gut feelings" -- is polling, when it comes to "electability." That's the hard data. What does it say? Take a look for yourself -- I mentioned some of them: he leads Trump in a heads-up matchup, including in key swing states. Biden in many cases does as well, sometimes more sometimes less, but that's beside the point.

Bernie also has a more enthusiastic base, the younger vote (by far), and majority-supported positions. The Democratic party agree more with Bernie on his proposals. Etc.

We can discuss details as well -- the moderates, African americans, and the elderly have come out more for Biden, for example. But this would all be missing my point: the argument about "electability." There was no reason for this fear three weeks ago, there's no reason for it now.

In fact, in terms of "gut feelings" -- I would argue there's much more reason to think Biden looks far weaker against Trump, and that we're repeating 2016 once again. We'll see it on full display on Sunday's debate, too.

If Sanders is one of the best speakers around, and that makes a meaningful difference in terms of votes why hasn't Bernie run away with votes in the primaries? — Relativist

Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable." They want to beat Trump and want to put up the best chance of that, even if it's someone they don't necessarily agree with or are particularly enthusiastic about. The media and the DNC made a last-ditch effort to run with Biden's ONE victory in South Carolina, and it paid off -- to even their surprise.

So they stopped Bernie again. Good for them. All that proves is that they're sleazier than the RNC (or more effective?). Rather than get behind a "socialist", they'd prefer a milquetoast, uninspiring, cognitively declining bore.

I don't even blame the "moderate" voters or the black voters for this, because when all the experts, thought leaders, party leaders, and media pundits are saying the same thing -- it's hard to believe Sanders is the correct choice. Despite the fact that he has been and continues to do well against Trump and in key swing states in polling.

Polls show democratic voters are more in line with Sanders' policies. National polls show Sanders' ideas have majorities. He had the enthusiasm and the younger voters. He had won several states and was polling well in the others, and there was a Hail Mary that connected. That's what happened, in my view.

Much as in the context of a family, and whatever formal or informal 'rules' the family follows or sets for themselves, their children, and so on; the anarchist view would eventually simply degenerate into nihilism (e.x. a parent parenting or disciplining their child is a form of "aggression" or "force" imposed on another without their "consent"), — IvoryBlackBishop

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop saying "the anarchist view" as if you have the slightest clue as to what you're discussing. You're so off base it's embarrassing.

First, "anarchism" has to be defined. To define it in such a way as to reduce it to the level of a cartoon isn't serious scholarship, even for a public forum.
Second, to say it degenerates into "nihilism" is likewise ridiculous, even in the example you give.

An act of aggression on a child is indeed an act of power, and one that should be justified. If you slap a child's hand as their reaching for a hot stove, or yank them away from the street when traffic is coming, then both examples of use of force and power, and both can be justified. You don't simply assault children for no reason -- we'd rightfully call that senseless abuse. Same with the police, same with he army, etc.

Same with teachers giving you an "F." There should be a reason, a justification, for this action. That's anarchism's central belief, but it's a tradition that varies widely in the application of that belief -- some apply it to economics, some to capitalism specifically, some to social structures, some to government, etc.

You're simply wasting everyone's time if you can't get these concepts straight.

At least start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

The "anarchist" stance is generally just a pretentious, antisocial attitude toward government as a "whole' — IvoryBlackBishop

Says who? What is this based on? What evidence?

It's far more like what I describe.

Can you summarize it for me? — IvoryBlackBishop

I could, but it would take me a long time indeed.

While it's true that, in practice, people in postions of power and authority have abritary or delegation in how they use it (such as a Judge in a court of law, an elected offical, a company executive, etc), this view is essentially "anarchist", and doesn't bother to distinguish between different types of power, or different political, economic, or social systems. — IvoryBlackBishop

This depends on what you mean by "anarchism," but I share the view with Chomsky that a common thread running through the anarchist tradition is that power should be justified -- whether in social or political systems. I also happen to think that's a very good way to think about power. It doesn't say that the use of power in the sense even of violence is always wrong, for example, but simply that the burden of proof is on the use of power. If the power systems can't meet this burden of proof, they should be dismantled.

I also like Nietzsche's assessment of power, which you don't mention. I recommend doing so if you're interested in the subject.

The reason why I do this is because microeconomic and personal decisions (say, regarding addiction for instance) affect everyone. They do so in often a direct and concrete way. There is also way, way more consensus on personal finance. The choices are an every day thing, and everyone must deal with them. This is just how I view things. — BitconnectCarlos

It's how I view things too, Carlos. But, as you know, it's only one part of an important issue. The other part is to ask what effect the environment has on individual choices and responsibility. The environment includes: housing, income, access to healthcare, education, food, etc., and the quality of these resources, filtering systems, laws, discrimination, tax codes, judicial bias (if you're rich, it's a slap on the wrist; if you're poor [whether white or black] you get 10 years), drug polices (and others) that disproportionately effect poor and minority communities, and on and on.

These are all very real factors as well, some glaringly obvious just in the statistics alone.

I'm sure you recognize all of this. What exposes what I believe to be your faulty assumptions is the way you emphasize one side of the equation while minimizing the other side, which is at least equally as important. In my view, if you spent a little more time looking into this other side, you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

And let me be clear: this should NOT be justification for victimization, infantilization, and helplessness. "The system made me do it!" is not a slogan I endorse. But I also acknowledge that the game is, in fact, tilted.

Depends on what we mean by "middle class" and "poverty." It can be as misleading as the unemployment statistic.

Yes, by some agreed income cutoff, following those three things probably does make it less likely that you fall below that cutoff.

Personal responsibility and choices you make in life are indeed important. You don't "need to explain this" because no one is arguing against it. You continue to devise Scarcrows.

The point I'm making is a simple one: your emphasis, when looking at class, poverty, income, etc., tends to be the personal responsibility of the poor and working classes. You place the onus on them while largely ignoring (but not denying) the role of the system in which they live, learn and grow. But that's a very narrow analysis.

Did slaves have some personal responsibility? Sure. They could have tried to escape, tried an uprising, killed themselves, etc. The factory girls of the 1800s -- they had personal choices too.

Everyone has some responsibility for their lives. Today's wage slaves, like yourself, have many options and choices. As do I. Others are less fortunate not only in the class they were born into, but in the social and material environments in which they developed, the time they got to dedicate to educating themselves, the availability and affordability of healthcare, libraries, etc.
and so on. In some parts of some states, there are things called "food deserts" and "pharmacy deserts" and, if you don't have a car, you're stuck.

If you're raised in severe poverty, can't focus in school and so drop out, have parents that are abusive drug addicts, surrounded by gang violence and police discrimination, etc., do you have a level of personal responsibility? Absolutely. Even here. And it's also important to say, because it's not about convincing people they're helpless or that they're victims. But again, these factors aren't simply "excuses" either.

You get my point, I hope. There are multifarious, complex reasons for why people live the way they do. A major predictor of teenager pregnancy is level of education. As education increases, unwanted pregnancies go down. That pertains to #2 on your list, for example.

So in that case, should it be any wonder that those with less educational resources have higher rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy? Should we, as fellow citizens -- if we care at all -- simply say it's a matter of choice and personal responsibility, case closed? Or do we have an obligation to at least improve the environment and institutions?

I feel we do have that obligation, and that's it's in our rational self-interest to care about these problems. The world is connected, and as trite as it sounds "We're all in it together." This can't be more true these days. What happens in poor inner city communities, or what happens in Wuhan, China, may seem easy to ignore or easy to dismiss with superficial analyses and platitudes about personal choice, but as we see over and over again, we end up paying a price as well -- whether in tax dollars or contagion.

The fact that you minimize these other factors is itself revealing of your psychology. That was my point.

And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That’s, again, near a universal. So you — whoever you may be — you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it’s good for your character, it’s tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I’ll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I’m getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I’m perfectly willing to make profits, but I don’t want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.

(Chomsky)

What the fuck is that? The markets are manipulated to the extreme by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. There is no such thing as a free market. — creativesoul

Ding ding ding. Winner!

It's an abstraction, an ideal that people refuse to let go of. Usually used to justify the neoliberal agenda (i.e., giving everything away to private power, thus into the hands of a very small ruling class).

Again I point to Chomsky's "Free Market fantasies" lecture.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GPD or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.
— Xtrix
What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself. — ssu

What effects? The Dow just had it's worst day since 2008. Yes, the market going down is a source of trouble. Remember -- we share the burden when things fail. We do not, however, share in the profits. This isn't hard to see or understand.

Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? — ssu

We're talking priorities. Economic growth, as you highlighted, should be very low on the list, in any rational world, when facing an existential threat. How much is too much when you're heading for disaster?

The economic question has been answered. The Green New Deal will create many jobs, and will also cost a lot of money. Trillions of dollars. It will also save us money in the long run. The details can be hammered out, but let's at least first admit something MAJOR must be done, and quickly. If you can't admit that, there's no sense talking to you. If you can, and you simply don't agree with the proposal, then by all means come up with something better.

So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy. — ssu

OK. And your suggestions are what? If you believe in them, fight for them. Otherwise you're simply dead wood -- an obstacle, and I would recommend simply getting out of the way. Perhaps get together with others who believe nothing can or should be done.

I'm a big fan of Chomsky. Many of his positions I disagree with. On foreign policy I'm a Chomskyite all the way. And when it comes to knocking the New York Times, Chomsky is the one who's spent decades meticulously documenting their ruling class, warmongering soul. — fishfry

Yes of course, but he's also one of the press's biggest defenders. Criticizing our country or our press doesn't mean one hates or wants to destroy either. In fact, you criticize the things you love, especially when they start making huge mistakes.

:)

Or write too much anyway.

A deeply disingenuous point, which you'd understand if you knew the first thing about Medicare.

Medicare is a public/private partnership. Private insurance companies offer Medicare drug programs, Medicare supplemental insurance, and Medicare advantage. Those programs add flexibility and individual choice to Medicare. — fishfry

I think this response is disingenuous. I was illustrating that not everything the government does is awful, nor do the public view it that way. Now you want to say that the reason it's popular is because of the private aspect of it, or otherwise "people would hate it." Heads I win, tails you lose.

Nearly everything is mixed. So you can say it about anything: People like roads not because the government builds them but because they contract with private companies, etc.

Libraries are popular, too. So I guess that must be due to some private element as well?

The government is funded largely by taxes, which in a working society would be spent in ways that benefit the vast majority of Americans: public transportation, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. The basics. It's true that there's plenty to complain about, but the answer isn't to privatize everything. The push for privatization has in fact led to disasters.

The reasons our roads and bridges are falling apart, for example, isn't because it's government-run, but because it's underfunded. Which is a common tactic used by those who want to privatize an industry -- underfund it, watch it fail, then point to that failure and say "See, the government can't do anything right -- better give it over to private, unaccountable companies."

That strategy has succeeded. We're living the results. Meanwhile the neoliberal philosophy trickles down to working and middle class people like you, who continue to promote it with vigor. In this sense, one has to be in awe of the private sector.

The articles can barely even be called opinions. It's just speculation based on comments made by a long-term Clinton adviser (who obviously benefits from having his boss be talked about in the news) written-up and published as click-bait so that these publications can sell advertising space at a competitive rate, and Fishfry actually believes it. — Maw

You're obviously correct. This is a very scary phenomenon, too. The question is: How do we deal with it when we see it, and in what way?



Why is it that someone else's being wrong brings out this childish behavior in us? Is it that it's an online forum? Because I'm often the same way, and it's never done me any good.

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?
— Xtrix

Laws written by unelected officials. People who are knowingly writing pieces of legislation which err on the side of major corporations' profit margins, and in doing so against everyday Americans...

Speeches as well are written by people who are not a candidate/public official.

These sorts of things are wrong on all sorts of levels. — creativesoul

Exactly right.



Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.
— Xtrix
One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could. — ssu

You're projecting, again. Notice I didn't say the US was doing good or bad. I said we're living with the consequences.

Now when you say the "US has done well," you're not saying much at all. First you have to clarify what you mean by the US. If by the US you mean PEOPLE of the US, then no, we haven't done "well" at all by historical standards. We've declined. If by the US you mean the corporate sector, then yes things are amazing indeed -- no question. They'll probably continue getting better, too.

Saying things can get worse is fatuous. Things can always get worse.



Notice that the media isn't picking this endorsement up as much as Harris, Booker, etc.

It's a definite possibility. — fishfry

No, it isn't. You keep making statements like this and you lose a little credibility each time. I don't believe it's because you're stupid; I'd prefer to believe you do some kind of critical thinking about these topics.

Asking yourself some questions is helpful. Remember that the DNC are full of real people making real, calculated decisions. Do we think it's even remotely likely that -- out of the blue -- they nominate Hillary Clinton? Really think about it.

The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. — ssu

What good is an economy if you're under water? Or dead? Or having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on environmental disasters? It's true that the Green New Deal will create jobs, but even if infinite growth isn't in our future, it'll still save us money and lives and help mitigate the yearly disasters we're already seeing.

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GDP or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.

When you say "rigged" I think casino games. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, ok. Thank you. Yes, that comes to mind for me as well and definitely has that connotation, but in this context I don't mean a conspiracy or anything as dramatic or blatant as rigging a Roulette table or slot machine or something like that.

When I use "rigged" I mean legislation and policies (e.g. deregulation) that get proposed and passed based not on what the majority of people are demanding, but what serves the interests of only a small portion of society -- call them the plutocratic class or the "the wealthy elites." That's not to say that the population at large don't get some of what they want, as they still have the power of the vote and the politicians know that, but if you watch the values and interests of the classes (the top .01% vs 20% vs 80%), it's the donor class -- those who can afford to spend extra money on campaign contributions, sometimes very large -- which gets closer to 100% of what they want. As you go up the amount scale, you find a stronger correlation.

This is exactly what we would expect, too, given that those who get elected are those with the funds to buy advertising, hire consultation and staff, rent a campaign office, etc. The more powerful the positions, the more money is usually required. And most of them aren't millionaires or billionaires, although most of them come from wealthier backgrounds who could afford to attend Harvard and Yale.

If the money to become a senator is large, the only people who have the means to meet that amount of money are "special interest groups," and this in turn can buy a seat at the table and a sympathetic ear for lobbyists. Lobbyists are representatives of the special interest that contributed money to the campaign. The larger the contribution, the more important it is to listen to what they want.

All of this is basic and obvious. Takes no genius to figure out. So how is any of this related to what's meant by a "rigged economy"?

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?

Very favorable terms. What legislation would we expect to come out of this lobbying from the corporate (big business) world? Exactly what we see in both party's administrations: favorable trade deals (NAFTA under Clinton), tax cuts (Reagan, Bush II and Trump), deregulation (Trump, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama), bailouts, maintaining the status quo, large subsidies (grants -- free money given to big business to help keep their prices low, particularly in agriculture and energy), union busting, corporate personhood, unlimited corporate spending, etc. The last few were favorable court rulings, but just as relevant as they deal with laws as well.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.

If you are OK with all of this because you happen to be happy where you are in life right now, or had a run of luck, or were born into a family that was fairly well-off, etc., then it's worth remembering how interconnected we are (and everything is) in today's world. The coronavirus spread is a good topical example. I don't like the hysteria, of course, but even give all these precautions it still spreads. Look at the economic domino effect as well.

The same is true of ideas, of environmental degradation, of nuclear radiation, of popular movements. They can be good or bad, but there's no running away to a desert island or burying yourself in your personal life anymore. We're at a time when we're being forced to become global-minded. You can choose to ignore it or sit it out, I suppose. I have done and continue to do too much of that. But I'm reminded every day that there is a world outside my room, filled with all kinds of people just like me. To at least acknowledge that fact is a start.

I needed to lay it all out like this, because there's no sense going back and forth with snippets.

I'm politicked out for the moment. Health care policy is very wonky, I only get into it to a certain level. — fishfry

No kidding.

In general I favor liberty and individual choice, so instinctively I push back on any kind of one-size-fits-all system imposed from the top down by a government that does not exactly have a good track record for competence. — fishfry

People overwhelmingly like medicare, actually. This belief that everything the government does is terrible or incompetent is old and boring.

I'm in favor of choices too. If given the choice between giving my money to private corporate tyrannies whose ultimate purpose is to turn a profit, or a system run by my tax dollars, I'm ready to give the latter a chance. But suit yourself.

You prefer collective solutions and I prefer individual ones. We're not going to resolve that difference by looking at data. — fishfry

How else do we have conversations and solve problems? Our feelings?

Creationists use this argument a lot, actually. They claim the geologic data can be interpreted as evidence for Noah's flood. Just a different scientific model from "evolutionism." So they deserve equal time in schools. Do you accept this?

If not, why take that very same attitude towards healthcare or anything else? It's citizens identifying and discussing problems, and generating sensible solutions, that move this country forward. Not by throwing up their hands and saying "Well it's all a matter of opinion anyway, so why bother?"

This attitude is very revealing and exposes a general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to gain knowledge. It's at the heart of these arguments from anti-vaxers, climate "skeptics," 9/11 truthers, etc. They don't believe there's such a thing as expertise. Or they do, but just not in this particular domain. Why? Because it's either been politicized (deliberately, in the media) and so they've been essentially brainwashed through misinformation, or because they've taken a few minutes to read something on the Internet about it and bam, they know just as much as anyone else and their position is just as valid.

It's nonsense. I suspect you wouldn't accept those positions. So why do it here?

You're overreacting to a figure of speech. Let me rephrase.

I am not the person you need to be arguing with. It's your fellow Democrats who soundly rejected Bernie on Super Tuesday. Your political argument is with them, not me.

Is that a more clear representation of what I'm saying? — fishfry

Yes. But since I don't have Tom Perez in front of me, you'll have to do.

(That was a joke.)

So it's ok. You think I'm wrong to want to make my own health care decisions; and that I must not be allowed to do so? — fishfry

Of course not.

The New York Times is the enemy of us all. It represents the forces that Trump and Bernie alike are fighting. — fishfry

You have to read the NYT with a critical and skeptical eye, yes. To say it's an enemy is too dramatic. It's very important to have newspapers and journalism in this country. the NYT still have many good journalists doing very good work.

To say Trump is fighting the forces like Sanders is a joke. Trump attacks the NYT whenever there's something he doesn't like or when he perceives it makes him look bad (maybe a redundancy). He's not interested in whether they're telling the truth or not.

But when you presume to tell me that you demand and insist to make my health care decisions for me. I will always push back on authoritarianism. — fishfry

You're welcome to keep fighting the good fight against a scarecrow. I want no part in it.

Choice, remember? I thought your side was all into Choice. Free markets give consumers choices. I stand with free markets as the most effective means of delivering goods and services to the greatest number of people. If you don't believe me, drop in to your local grocery store. — fishfry

Yes, the magical free markets. If you're open to changing your positions, read the following with an open mind. If not, ignore it. But it's a very good analysis.

https://chomsky.info/19960413/

Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?

Not necessarily, but this is the case for some people. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and for many others it isn't. They work very hard and are still screwed. To highlight and rail on one and not the other, particularly when there's far more evidence to support the latter, exposes your own prejudices.

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so.

I just can't believe you when you say that the American dream is a myth or like winning the lottery when I grew up in a neighborhood where most people were maybe 1st or 2nd generation immigration who came over to the US with not much money and yet here we are in a decent neighborhood. You make out economic mobility to be a myth when I just don't think that's the case. — BitconnectCarlos

Where do I say that in the above quotation? I'll repeat: plenty of people do it.

Now look at the second sentence, because it's here that the issue lies. Given your use of standard talking points about personal responsibility, hard work, upward mobility, excuses, and "blaming the system," it seems to me you believe we're not in fact living in a rigged economy and plutocracy, and that systemic biases either don't exist or are minimal. If this isn't your position, you're certainly not acknowledging or highlighting these factors. And they are real and powerful.

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion

Then why has my family done it? Why did I grow up around people who also did it? Apparently none of us exist in your world. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so. This doesn't say anything about the economy being rigged for the wealthy, who own and control it. It's like saying we're a democracy because we get the option to push a button every four years, and if you criticize it you're "anti-democracy."

The bottom line is to drop the capitalist indoctrination in which we're all raised. That includes notions of an "American dream" and "rugged individualism."

I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them.
— BitconnectCarlos

Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data. — Xtrix

Escaping poverty is very rare? I don't think so. — BitconnectCarlos

No, Welfare queens and other outlier examples, which are used to justify cutting funding and a general hatred towards the poor, are rare. I put the entire context in -- in case it was an accident that you left it out.

"If."

That issue is retirement. Shouldn't be too hard to recognize. If someone is earning decent money and does not save any of it and wakes up at age 65 one day and is annoyed that they have to keep working then I'm sorry but you've made your own bed. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. What's your point?

Your attitude contributes to your problem. Wealth isn't made in a day, it's often made through generations. Just upping yourself by one class and being able to raise your children in that class is a huge accomplishment. It's sad that you don't see this. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe if you worked harder, you could up it even more. I'm so done with people like you who "blame the system" for where you are.

The above is satire. But my point is this: you'll never be a CEO not because you don't work hard enough or don't "want" it, etc. It's the same reason kids you are more than capable of getting into Havard don't get accepted but a "legacy" kid will. Is that just a matter of merit and hard work, too?

You can't possibly believe this isn't a rigged economy in many ways. You can't possibly NOT see that rich people get preferential treatment from the judicial system, etc. It's simply a matter of statistics. OK, so once you admit that, the question becomes how prevalent it is. Turns out, very much so. More than I ever thought when I was a teenager believing precisely as you do, that anyone who blamed other people or the "system" was like the kid who always blamed his bad shots on the rim. But then I really looked around, listened to people's stories, surveyed the data, etc., and quickly realized my assumptions were dead wrong.

So I don't approach this as a victim and, in fact, I'm very happy with where I am. Likewise with living in this country. To criticize this economy and this country does not mean I hate it or I feel I'm a victim. It's acknowledging reality, of which there's overwhelming evidence that shows it's almost all tilted to the wealthy and the powerful. Which shouldn't be surpassing to anyone who's studied history or who puts down their indoctrination and looks around honestly.