Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-21-2019, 10:54 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,014
never heard that anti-nuclear power is anti-science. Where does that idea come from?
  #152  
Old 02-21-2019, 11:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post

So you're anti-science as well. Got it.
By definition of course. If one questions the safety and cost efficiency of nuclear power then one is not a true scientist. Cue bagpipes. And tell these guys.

FWIW I am agnostic on nuclear power. The industry does not deserve the subsidization it gets and without it it is not competitive. That subsidization should go to technologies that are not yet matured. Many basic issues, such as waste management long term, have not yet been adequately addressed either. There are, in my mind, better alternatives in fair head to head comparisons.

Now some who are very pro-science agree with that assessment and some do not. We've had fine debates about it on these boards with much data and good discussion. Two people both pro-science can disagree about how to interpret the data and what values to place on what outcomes. What is anti-science is to argue for a position by name-calling.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-21-2019 at 11:26 AM.
  #153  
Old 02-21-2019, 11:45 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
So just like Hillary Clinton in 2008.


Nope. Watch any Bernie rally from 2016.

Bernie: ‘...the Democratic Party’
Crowd: BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s the difference between Clinton 2008 and Sanders 2016.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #154  
Old 02-21-2019, 12:11 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
By definition of course. If one questions the safety and cost efficiency of nuclear power then one is not a true scientist. Cue bagpipes. And tell these guys.
There are some scientists who deny that humans have anything to do with climate change. There are some doctors who argue against vaccinations. They are both still anti-science positions.

Nuclear power has been debated plenty of times on the Dope and neither of us will be changing our minds. I feel confident, however, in declaring all those against nuclear power, GMO, evolution, vaccinations, and climate change as anti-science. Sanders ticks off two of those. He needs to go away.
  #155  
Old 02-21-2019, 01:05 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Sanders is anti-GMO and anti-nuclear power, which means he is anti-science. He needs to go away.
LOL
  #156  
Old 02-21-2019, 01:47 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Excuse me..."We've" run the numbers? You actually work at taxfoundation.org, or did you have a mouse in your pocket when you typed that?
I'm not sure what this even means. Fortunately, I don't think it matters.
Quote:
A random cite is not going to handwave away the very real problems that unregulated, unrestrained capitalism that is a toothpick away from robber-baronism have brought to this nation.
We don't have unregulated or unrestrained capitalism in this nation, so this is more or less irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Bernie's plans will depress the economy, kill millions of jobs, reduce income at all levels, and further bloat the national debt. If you have a substantive response to that, perhaps you could post it. If not, I wouldn't talk about hand-waving.
Quote:
And no, I'm not in Bernie's camp as yet.
IOW you can count. Keep up the good work.

Regards,
Shodan
  #157  
Old 02-21-2019, 07:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
...Bernie has benefited from being in a cocoon. During the primaries the Republicans clearly wanted him to remain viable to hurt Hillary. Hillary didn’t want to go after him because she didn’t want to alienate her voters.

I can assure you whatever polls you have about someone who has never been a party’s nominee for President, they just aren’t relevant because a lot of stuff is going to be done to Bernie that has never been done before if he’s nominated. ...
^This. Current polls concerning Bernie's chances are utterly meaningless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
It might not sit well with you personally, but I firmly believe that the vast majority of voters do not give a shit about the candidate's taxes. ...
Bernie Sanders' chief selling point is that he's the Candidate of Integrity.* This concept is unsustainable if he continues to give cute excuses for failing to reveal his tax returns.

Like it or not, tax returns have become the standard for transparency--not just about particulars of a candidate's financial life, but about honesty, upright conduct, and accountability to the electorate.

If he declines to provide them, his 'integrity' claims become shaky at best.




* Yes, far more than the socialism, it's the idea that Bernie is the Incorruptible One that has won him ardent adherents. No, I won't provide a citation. It's my opinion. However, I think that opinion is well-supported by any cursory look at what Bernie's fans say about him.
  #158  
Old 02-21-2019, 07:55 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If you Google it, you'll find a variety of articles on the matter. Politifact, in fact, reported in 2016 that the Sanders' campaign assertion that they had released their tax returns was, in fact, "false".

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...eturns-compar/

Washington Post then followed it up with a fact check of their own, which can be read here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3f32055d903e

This was in response to an interview with Jake Tapper in which he said that he and his wife do his tax returns and excused himself by saying "We've been a little busy lately".

Taxes are an even bigger issue if he's going to bring his wife into the discussion given that she was the subject of a federal probe into the collapse of the college she managed.

Further, I'm wondering how smart it is for a high-profile political figure like Sanders to be doing his own taxes, especially since he's that busy. I'm not claiming he doesn't have the right to do them himself - he absolutely does. But how smart is that, really? Especially knowing that an error or two can lead to political scrutiny and even more so if you don't have a third party to blame.
Yeah, I did Google it and found those articles from spring 2016. I'm surprised there hasn't been any followup. Well, I'm sure there will be before the voting resumes, so we'll see what happens.

It's very weird. If any other politician did this, I'd assume they had something sleazy to cover up. But, really, why would anyone think you could run for President and not have to show your tax returns? You'd have to be an idiot.

OK, it might work if your brand is "Cartoon Supervillian", but not if it's "Crusader for Honest Government".
  #159  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:19 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm not sure what this even means. Fortunately, I don't think it matters.
what foreign-language word did I use that Google Translate can't help you with?

Quote:
We don't have unregulated or unrestrained capitalism in this nation, so this is more or less irrelevant.
Yes, of course. The fact that wages per man-hour haven't gone up in nearly forty years while the cost of living has virtually tripled is completely incidental. Or is this one of those not-a-bug-a-feature things?[/quote

Quote:
What is relevant is that Bernie's plans will depress the economy, kill millions of jobs, reduce income at all levels, and further bloat the national debt. If you have a substantive response to that, perhaps you could post it. If not, I wouldn't talk about hand-waving.
Given that people of similar outlook to you said this in the early nineties in re the Clinton tax increases, you'll forgive me if I file this somewhere between the moon-landing hoaxes and the Flat Earth Society's Welcome brochure.
Quote:
Keep up the good work.
I always do.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #160  
Old 02-21-2019, 08:57 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Well, 538 published an article today looking at the always heated topic of whether disloyal Sanders voters cost Clinton the election. A new (?) 50,000 voter poll shows that the data supports...a position, as far as I know, advocated by absolutely nobody on this board. Yet we must fight on.

On the one hand, it seems previous polls significantly underestimated the number of Sanders voters who failed to vote for Clinton in the general election. This poll has it at 26%, far above historic norms. So, yes, it is safe to say that if Clinton had received the support from Bernie's voters that the candidate can ordinarily expect to get from the supporters of the runner-up, something like 85-90%, she would have won handily.

But on the other hand, contrary to widespread assumption, it wasn't Bernie's far left supporters who were spurning Clinton; it was his moderate and conservative supporters! Of Sanders voters who identified as "Very Liberal","Liberal", or "Somewhat Liberal",about 85% voted for Comrade Clinton in the fall. But of Bernie's moderate and conservative backers, only 65% did. Of Bernie's self-identified Democratic voters, 88% went on to vote for HRC; of his independent and Republican voters, only 69% did.

Here's Silver's analysis of the factors that distinguished Sanders-Not Clinton voters from Sanders-Clinton voters:

Quote:
Non-Democrats, voters who didn’t think whites benefited from their race, and voters who wanted to repeal the ACA were much more likely to be #NeverHillary voters. Voters who were rural, poor, who lived in the South or the Northeast, who were born-again Christians, who were conservatives, and who were military veterans were also somewhat more likely to be #NeverHillary, other factors held equal. Black people, Hispanics, women, liberals, millennials, union members and voters with four-year college degrees were less likely to be #NeverHillary voters.
Also, the percentage of "NeverHillary" voters increased in open primary States once Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, suggesting that many of these people were actual Republicans who either were voting strategically or just wanted to vote against Hillary twice.

TLDR: it appears that about one-fourth of Bernie's primary support came from people who were never likely to vote for Clinton if she won the nomination, and that the large majority of those voters were to Clinton's right, not her left. These also seem to be voters who are unlikely to ever in life vote for Bernie Sanders unless Hillary Clinton is the only other name on the ballot.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 02-21-2019 at 09:00 PM.
  #161  
Old 02-21-2019, 09:42 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
There are some scientists who deny that humans have anything to do with climate change. There are some doctors who argue against vaccinations. They are both still anti-science positions. ...
IF one is interested in science then one is interested in data. Here's some: the 2015 Pew survey of members of U.S. members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest multidisciplinary scientific professional society.

No question that there is near unanimity among scientists on the issues of human impact on climate change and on the need to require vaccines like the MMR. (Even more regarding the safety of GMO foods and on evolution of course.)

Not so much so on building more nuclear power plants. Oh more in favor than the general public is, but more than a third are not.

To characterize more than a third of AAAS members as anti-science is silly. This is an area of reasoned disagreement among large segments of the scientific community.
  #162  
Old 02-21-2019, 11:08 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,841
Bernie Sanders has run against Vermont Democrats no less than 14 times over the course of his career, and has long insisted - sometimes even in insulting terms - that he is not and never could be a Democrat.

I dunno, I just think it would be nice if a person seeking a party's nomination for the Presidency would, you know, actually be a member of that party.

And remain one when he wasn't running for President.
  #163  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:45 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
never heard that anti-nuclear power is anti-science. Where does that idea come from?
As I understand it from (very lefty, green) folks who understand the ins and outs of it better than I do, it's unlikely that we'll become carbon-free in a reasonable time frame unless nuclear is part of the mix. Unless battery technology comes a long way, you've got to have some residual standard power-plant electricity generation for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. And the current options are fossil fuels or nukes.
  #164  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:10 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Battery technology IS coming a long way, though. It's just a matter of timescale and commitment.
  #165  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:13 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I dunno, I just think it would be nice if a person seeking a party's nomination for the Presidency would, you know, actually be a member of that party.
He ain't gonna sign, or he'd have done it by now, and the rule wouldn't even have been considered. He'll never be able to force himself even to say he supports the party whose acclamation he demands, just like he's never been able to force himself to try to get anything substantial actually accomplished.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 02-22-2019 at 08:17 AM.
  #166  
Old 02-22-2019, 08:52 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Yes, of course. The fact that wages per man-hour haven't gone up in nearly forty years while the cost of living has virtually tripled is completely incidental. Or is this one of those not-a-bug-a-feature things?
It's one of those not-true-it's-false things. Unless you have a cite that average hourly wages in the US in constant dollars has not increased in forty years. Which you don't.
Quote:
Given that people of similar outlook to you said this in the early nineties in re the Clinton tax increases, you'll forgive me if I file this somewhere between the moon-landing hoaxes and the Flat Earth Society's Welcome brochure.
Really?

Then by all means provide a cite from the early 90s where people with similar outlook to me said that the Clinton tax increases would
  • depress the economy. My cite is that Sanders' plan would reduce GDP by 9.5% in the long term. Let's see your cite that this was claimed for the Clinton tax increases.
  • kill millions of jobs My cite says 6 million jobs. Let's see your cite for the Clinton tax increases killing anything like that number.
  • reduce income at all levels. My cite says
    Quote:
    The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes decrease by at least 4.87 percent. The top 50 percent of taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes decrease by at least 8.57 percent. Finally, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would see their after-tax incomes fall by 17.91 percent.
    Let's see your cite claiming that the Clinton tax increases would reduce after tax income for the bottom 50% by that much.
  • and further bloat the national debt. Again, let's see your cite that the Clinton tax increases would increase the national debt.
Or you can try to hand-wave and obfuscate.

Regards,
Shodan
  #167  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:03 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,832
More polling data...

OH Predictive Insights poll of likely voters in Arizona:

Arizona: Trump vs. Biden OH Predictive Insights Trump 46, Biden 46 Tie
Arizona: Trump vs. Harris OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Harris 40 Trump +9
Arizona: Trump vs. Warren OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Warren 38 Trump +11
Arizona: Trump vs. Sanders OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Sanders 37 Trump +12
  #168  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:11 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
More polling data...

OH Predictive Insights poll of likely voters in Arizona:

Arizona: Trump vs. Biden OH Predictive Insights Trump 46, Biden 46 Tie
Arizona: Trump vs. Harris OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Harris 40 Trump +9
Arizona: Trump vs. Warren OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Warren 38 Trump +11
Arizona: Trump vs. Sanders OH Predictive Insights Trump 49, Sanders 37 Trump +12
This seems to support a growing body of evidence that suggests moderate conservatives are bailing on Trump and Republicans. Candidates like Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar would seem to have positions that would make them competitive with centrists on the right and left, but would they motivate the progressives who are increasingly taking over the Democratic party? And can they even compete in the party to begin with?

Like it or not, real Democrat or not, today's Democratic party is a welcoming environment for Sanders, and it's a much more comfortable arena for him to play in this time around. I don't doubt for a moment he can compete in the primaries; it's after the primaries that worries me.
  #169  
Old 02-22-2019, 11:25 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,811
Brown may be pragmatic but he is not a centrist. His OnTheIssues score (see diagram near bottom) states "Sherrod Brown is a Hard-Core Liberal. " Same as Sanders. The slight difference between their maps is that Sanders slightly leans to the libertarian direction and Brown to the populist.

FWIW Mother Jones describes Brown as Sanders' biggest threat.
Quote:
if Brown decides to jump into the race, catch-up may not be such a difficult game for him to play—and not only because he can connect with the white working-class voters that pundits worry have been lost to Republicans. He has a track record in lanes that are in vogue with Democratic voters, should the 2018 midterms be any indication, such as a long-standing obsession with economic inequality and a track record of advancing civil rights (though he hasn’t signed onto some initiatives favored by his party’s leftist wing, including the Green New Deal or the pledge to reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests).

In many respects, the 66-year-old Ohio native comes from a similar political line as Sen. Bernie Sanders—he’s just more likely to talk about how unions benefit factory floor workers than to point to Scandinavian countries’ socialist policies. Meanwhile, his hardline economic positions that favor the working class put him in close company with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It’s the party’s progressive wing, who four years ago obsessed over drafting Warren into the race before putting their support behind Sanders, that’s giving Brown a hard look.

“Progressives are looking for two things: someone who can propose and make real a bold, progressive, racially inclusive vision of a country that works for everyone, and the second is someone who can defeat Trump,” says Ben Wikler, Washington director for MoveOn. “Sherrod Brown’s track record in Ohio suggests that he has ideas about where those two things can intersect.”
Beyond Brown though the problem for Sanders includes that his "lane" is crowded now, and some of the others appeal to other lanes as well.
  #170  
Old 02-22-2019, 12:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
He ain't gonna sign, or he'd have done it by now, and the rule wouldn't even have been considered. He'll never be able to force himself even to say he supports the party whose acclamation he demands, just like he's never been able to force himself to try to get anything substantial actually accomplished.
Once again you repeat a claim that, if you were reading the thread carefully, you would know is false. He has claimed to be a Democrat. If you have a problem with the fact that he hasn't consistently done so, fine. But you can't truthfully claim that he hasn't done so.

Just for my own amusement: In this fantasy world of yours where the DNC is going to prevent Sanders from running as a Democrat, exactly when do you suppose they're planning to tell him?
  #171  
Old 02-22-2019, 01:20 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
...He has claimed to be a Democrat....
His official Senate website still describes him as an Independent: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/
  #172  
Old 02-22-2019, 02:22 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,968
I like Sanders, but I don't think there's any way he gets the nomination in 2020, and I'm not really sure what he's running for now. His 2016 campaign seems to have accomplished it's goal of shoving the Democratic party to the left, and there are a lot more options that Hillary "It's her turn" Clinton making their way into the field for 2020, so I think his weaknesses will really come out during hard campaigning. Some of the stuff people want to pin on him won't work - shouting 'socialist!' is not the extreme negative it once was, and associating him with the USSR is not likely to sway anyone when the alternative is almost-KGB-agent Trump, but I think there's plenty of negatives out there that will bury him by the time primaries come up, much less the election. Not releasing his tax returns when he didn't get the nomination is 'eh', but the fact that he still hasn't released them means there's likely to be a big bomb waiting there for one of the other nominees or the republicans to toss at him.
  #173  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:47 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Plenty of creationists and climate change deniers are pro vaccination. Does that make them pro-science, too?
Yeah, partly. The really anti-science ones are pretty scary even to other fundies.

But since you brought up pro-lifers, you seem to use "anti-science" the way the American Life League's Judie Brown uses "anti-life."

We've kind of been over this before.

If Bernie refuses to re-certify any existing nuclear power plants, I agree that that is bad & stupid. As far as building new ones, I still think that is a lot harder now, post-Fukushima.

But someone who is opposed to merely labelling GMO's is not a credible debater on who is "anti-science." I think you mean, "opposed to massive science-fiction technological reinvention of the world," in which case, no, that's not what science is for.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-22-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #174  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:32 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Once again you repeat a claim that, if you were reading the thread carefully, you would know is false. He has claimed to be a Democrat.
Once again, (A) Why the hell do you think the DNC implemented the rule, and (B) Has he or has he not complied with it, and if not, will he?

You know the answers, but it would be quite an improvement to see you say so. Meanwhile, your repeated claims of lying have been quite tiresome for some time now.
  #175  
Old 02-22-2019, 07:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,257
They implemented the rule because a certain crybaby contingent thinks taking loyalty oaths is an important part of being a leader.
  #176  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:17 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
If one thinks there's enough difference between GMO and non-GMO foods that they need to be labeled then they are anti-science.

I can remember when scientists thought margarine was healthier than butter because less saturated fat. Oops, turns out partially hydrogenated oil was a nifty invention for the sake of shelf life, but is actually much worse for your cardiovascular health than the natural saturated fats in butter. Why do you think science now is at a stage when it can be 100% certain that the foods it creates, that never existed in nature before, are just as safe as the ones we've been evolving with for millennia? I'm supposed to just accept that today's scientists are completely different on that account than the ones from when I was a kid?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It would be nice if we could just raise taxes on somebody else and all our problems go away, but TANSTAAFL.

It doesn't seem like you thought this through. Remember when Romney got in trouble for talking about the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes? Aren't they getting something of a free lunch when they benefit from programs funded by federal income taxes? (I'm not talking about the specific programs funded by FICA payroll taxes, that such people do pay.) There IS such a thing as a free lunch. One can certainly question what percentage of the population can get their lunch for free, and how lavish the lunch can be, but the hard and fast TANSTAAFL you threw out there does not apply.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Bernie has benefited from being in a cocoon. During the primaries the Republicans clearly wanted him to remain viable to hurt Hillary. Hillary didn’t want to go after him because she didn’t want to alienate her voters.

I can assure you whatever polls you have about someone who has never been a party’s nominee for President, they just aren’t relevant because a lot of stuff is going to be done to Bernie that has never been done before if he’s nominated. Even aside from Bernie’s many vulnerabilities, the simple fact is many of his beliefs are well out of the mainstream—and something like 60% of Americans view socialism unfavorably.

Precisely correct. "Socialist" is the most toxic label for politicians Gallup tested, beating "atheist" and "Muslim" by double digits: https://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/...appealing.aspx

Of course, the Bernheads always respond to the point about potential GOP attack ads with "who cares, they will attack any Democratic nominee". Yes, of course: but the ads against a Democrat who is not a target-rich environment aren't nearly as likely to actually, you know, WORK.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're a smart person. How can you admit the above and still assert that you'd work hard to elect Trump over Sanders?

Cosigned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
And why is it so important that no one even know if they're eating GMO's? What are you afraid of?

Good question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
RE: Israel - I think we should put a pin in the subject until the elections here next month. For the past decade, attitudes towards Israel, in American and elsewhere, have been conflated with attitudes toward Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud. If (God willing!) they lose the election, the entire array of support for and opposition to Israel will be rearranged - at which point we'll see where each candidate (Dem and Rep) stands.

I hadn't known the Likud coalition was finally in jeopardy of losing again. That's great news if it pans out.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-23-2019 at 12:19 AM.
  #177  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:02 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I
I hadn't known the Likud coalition was finally in jeopardy of losing again. That's great news if it pans out.
Things have been pretty crazy here these last few weeks. A month ago, people were griping about how the election results were a foregone conclusion, and that at most they'd end up rearranging a few deck chairs. Now, though, thanks to a new centrist alliance, it looks like there's a real chance of a change in power. It's been wild, and it isn't close to being over yet.
  #178  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:04 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Bernie Sanders has run against Vermont Democrats no less than 14 times over the course of his career, and has long insisted - sometimes even in insulting terms - that he is not and never could be a Democrat.

I dunno, I just think it would be nice if a person seeking a party's nomination for the Presidency would, you know, actually be a member of that party.

And remain one when he wasn't running for President.
Admittedly, I don't know much about this. I remember some people were trying to get Bernie Sanders to create a 3rd party. They were really mad that he didn't. I didn't really understand why.

I did look up why he doesn't describe himself as a Democrat and read the piece Vox did on it, which basically says that it's a message to his followers that he's on the side of the working class.

But having read this thread and watched what happened to Howard Schultz, wouldn't people be more upset if Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent rather than as a Democrat?


In other news, I'm happy to see the campaign team that Bernie Sanders has put together. He has Nina Turner, Ro Khanna, Ben Cohen and Carmen Yulin Cruz on his team. I really like Ro Khanna, so I'm happy to see him on the team.

Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tapped Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), San Juan, Puerto Rico Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D) and Ben Cohen, a co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, to serve as co-chairs of his presidential campaign.
Bernie Sanders also hired Faiz Shakir as campaign manager and Analilia Mejia as national political director and Sarah Badawi as deputy political director.

Quote:
Sanders had hired Faiz Shakir, the national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union, for the top post. Shakir is likely to be the first Muslim American to head a major presidential campaign.

The campaign has also retained Analilia Mejia, the state director of New Jersey Working Families, as its national political director, and Sarah Badawi, the government affairs director of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, as its deputy political director.
HuffPost

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 02-23-2019 at 03:08 AM.
  #179  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
They implemented the rule because a certain crybaby contingent thinks taking loyalty oaths is an important part of being a leader.
You're not entirely clear on who the "crybaby contingent" is, are you? Reconsider and retry.
  #180  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:19 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,034
Exactly, it’s really hard to get out of our own bubbles at time. The word ‘socialist’ doesn’t always have to refer to the old USSR or the mess in Venezuela currently.

It certainly does have a connotation with spoiled white millennials who have liberal arts degrees from private schools, $75K in student debt and they want ‘free stuff.’
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #181  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:43 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,096
There's also the simple fact that Sanders lost to Clinton who lost to Trump. For him to win against Trump, we'd be counting on people switching votes.

The guy created a lot of people who don't like him, same as Clinton. He's gonna face what Clinton faced. And we learned last time that you can't count on that to be overridden.

We need someone who can reasonably be seen as uniting people in the party. We should be trying to make sure no one feels they need to hold their nose and vote for the nominee. Supporters of any of the Democratic candidates should translate to votes for the eventual nominee.

I just don't think Sanders can pull it off, and I honestly think worse of him for running. Say what you want about Clinton: she realized that she would just harm chances against Trump and bowed out. And Sanders is in a worse position, because more people on the left didn't like him.
  #182  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:57 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,096
The reasoning behind not labeling GMOs is that the label in and of itself communicates the idea that these foods are different, and, well, less safe. The thing is, GMOs are just doing the same thing we've been doing for millennia, just in a more direct way. There's no reason to believe that they are any less safe--if anything, because of the science involved, they're more safe. If they resulted in chemicals that were unsafe for consumption, we'd know about it.

If companies want to go out of their way to avoid them for whatever reason, they will of course label their foods with anti-GMO markings. So it's not like people can't still decide. The difference is that those markings aren't mandated by the government, and thus don't carry the implicit idea that the FDA thinks that GMOs are unsafe.

I for one would prefer that they have those labels with an asterisk, with the FDA requiring a blurb saying that no studies to date have shown any negative affects from GMOs. That's the correct direction, having the labels match the science.

People still get the choice, but then they also get the facts. Seems win-win. Labeling GMOs seems more about stigmatizing the science used to produce them.
  #183  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
If they resulted in chemicals that were unsafe for consumption, we'd know about it.

Again with the “end of history” mentality. We have made plenty of food alterations in the past that we didn’t figure out were harmful until we had people acting as guinea pigs and eating them for decades and contributing their cancer or heart disease deaths to longitudinal population studies. Why should we be confident things are so different now?
  #184  
Old 02-23-2019, 01:31 PM
Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,114
I'm trying to figure out whether 4 pages of thread in less than a week is significant or irrelevant to the chances of a strong Sanders' showing in the primaries. I mean the passion shown in this thread is indicative of something, isn't it?
  #185  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:29 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,384
Speaking of passion, I always wonder what 2016 would've been like if it'd been a Hillary/Bernie ticket.

In one of the Dem debates where the two of them are shaking hands and beaming, I turned to the wife and said "Are we looking at the winning Democratic ticket here?"
  #186  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Again with the “end of history” mentality. We have made plenty of food alterations in the past that we didn’t figure out were harmful until we had people acting as guinea pigs and eating them for decades and contributing their cancer or heart disease deaths to longitudinal population studies. Why should we be confident things are so different now?


It seems that like in the case of not knowing about proper sources and how far science has investigated issues like global warming, that you are also not aware of the testing and research done to GMOs.

https://allianceforscience.cornell.e...ebate-is-over/
Quote:
The GMO debate is over again. Last week, the prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine issued what is probably the most far-reaching report ever produced by the scientific community on genetically engineered food and crops. The conclusion was unambiguous: Having examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, sat through hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds more comments from the general public, the scientists wrote that they “found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.”

The National Academies process was both impressively inclusive and explicitly consensual. As noted in the preface to their report, the scientists “took all of the comments” however ludicrous “as constructive challenges” and considered them carefully. Thus the expert committee patiently gave yogic flyer-turned-anti-GMO activist Jeffrey Smith a generous 20-minute slot within which to make his customary assertion that genetically engineered foods cause just about every imaginable modern ailment. Greenpeace also offered invited testimony. So did Giles-Eric Seralini, the French professor who suffered the ultimate scientific indignity of having his paper claiming rats fed GMOs suffered tumors retracted in 2013.

Each of their claims was examined in turn. Do GE foods cause cancer? No patterns of changing cancer incidence over time are “generally similar” between the US, where GMO foods are ubiquitous, and the United Kingdom, where they are virtually unknown. How about kidney disease? US rates have barely budged over a quarter century. Obesity or diabetes? There is “no published evidence to support the hypothesis” of a link between them and GE foods. Celiac disease? “No major difference” between the US and UK again. Allergies? “The committee did not find a relationship between consumption of GE foods and the increase in prevalence of food allergies.” Autism? Again, evidence comparing the US and UK “does not support the hypothesis of a link.”

In a rational world, everyone previously fearful about the health effects of GMOs would read the report, breathe a huge sigh of relief and start looking for more evidence-based explanations for worrying trends in health issues like diabetes, autism and food allergies.
  #187  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,851
Again, GIGO: it took much longer to figure out that curing meats, hydrogenating oils, and processing flour is super bad for us. Many scientists still push reduced fat dairy despite the mounting evidence of its unhealthfulness. Low fat, high carb diets were touted just 20 years ago. Scientists are just beginning to realize that telling people to stay out of the sun or slather on SPF 50 sunscreen may not have been the best advice. Why do you think you live in the end of scientific history? The lack of evidence of harm is not evidence of a lack of harm.
  #188  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:11 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by digs View Post
Speaking of passion, I always wonder what 2016 would've been like if it'd been a Hillary/Bernie ticket.

In one of the Dem debates where the two of them are shaking hands and beaming, I turned to the wife and said "Are we looking at the winning Democratic ticket here?"


Hillary was the ultimate technocrat. She saw how Bill had picked Al Gore who could have reasonably stepped in as president on day one should be need be.

I’ll say some good things about Bernie, he’s passionate, he inspires people, he promotes ideas .

But he wouldn’t be ready to assume the presidency on day one and I think he’d be as bored as Trump is with all the detailed policy wonk aspects of the presidency. Let’s assume some NRA madman assassinated Hillary early on, like the Reagan assassination attempt but successful. Can you see Bernie getting the presidential daily briefing when it features details about a coup in The Gambia?

So, no, I don’t think Clinton considered Sanders. Tim Kaine seems like the exact type of person for Hillary and I’m glad I voted for both of them.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #189  
Old 02-23-2019, 06:03 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Again, GIGO: it took much longer to figure out that curing meats, hydrogenating oils, and processing flour is super bad for us. Many scientists still push reduced fat dairy despite the mounting evidence of its unhealthfulness. Low fat, high carb diets were touted just 20 years ago. Scientists are just beginning to realize that telling people to stay out of the sun or slather on SPF 50 sunscreen may not have been the best advice. Why do you think you live in the end of scientific history? The lack of evidence of harm is not evidence of a lack of harm.
Nope. Your point here is the end really, because you are demanding prohibition with no evidence to support such a move. What is needed (and it was seemingly furnished many times before by critics of GMO and debunked as the studies show) is research that points to the harm, or demonstration that the mechanisms theorized for the harm you talk about actually doing that harm.

The problem here is that you are going as if that research has not been done before or that it continues. And the research that pointed to possible harm has been very weak or worse, fraudulent.

So the old point stands: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" And in this case it is about not only finding good examples of the alleged harm, but also examples of mechanisms that can make it harmful, on that the evidence is very weak. What it is a bit silly is to act as if checking for safety is not done also by the researchers of GMOs. The evidence is that GMOs are indeed tested a lot, and some can make the point that they are tested too much. But I do agree on the testing part already. There is however, after testing was done, a point when one has to trust the experts and not the fearmongers.

https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ucm280853.htm

https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/new-salmon-on-the-market/
  #190  
Old 02-23-2019, 06:10 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Again, GIGO: it took much longer to figure out that curing meats, hydrogenating oils, and processing flour is super bad for us.
We've been curing meats since the dawn of civilization and figured out processes had carcinogenic issues maybe 15 years ago. Is that the timeframe you think we should wait on judging GMO products?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-23-2019 at 06:12 PM.
  #191  
Old 02-23-2019, 07:44 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Once again, (A) Why the hell do you think the DNC implemented the rule, and (B) Has he or has he not complied with it, and if not, will he?

You know the answers, but it would be quite an improvement to see you say so. Meanwhile, your repeated claims of lying have been quite tiresome for some time now.
It would be quite an improvement if you read the damn thread. I've already answered your questions, why haven't you answered mine?
  #192  
Old 02-23-2019, 07:48 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
His official Senate website still describes him as an Independent: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/
Yes, but he has described himself as a Democrat in the past, as I quoted. Obviously he hasn't been consistent in that, and can be legitimately criticized on those grounds.

I was only rebutting Elvis' claim that he has NEVER claimed to be a Democrat.
  #193  
Old 02-24-2019, 02:35 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
We've been curing meats since the dawn of civilization and figured out processes had carcinogenic issues maybe 15 years ago. Is that the timeframe you think we should wait on judging GMO products?

That’s about how long I’d wait (as in, permanent hard pass), but everyone can decide for themselves—IF they are labeled. Which is what we were talking about (that’s Bernie’s stance, correct?), until GIGO invented from whole cloth this notion that I was in favor of prohibition. GIGO prefers to deal with straw men that are easily batted down, you see.
  #194  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:45 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
By definition of course. If one questions the safety and cost efficiency of nuclear power then one is not a true scientist. Cue bagpipes. And tell these guys.

FWIW I am agnostic on nuclear power. The industry does not deserve the subsidization it gets and without it it is not competitive. That subsidization should go to technologies that are not yet matured. Many basic issues, such as waste management long term, have not yet been adequately addressed either. There are, in my mind, better alternatives in fair head to head comparisons.

Now some who are very pro-science agree with that assessment and some do not. We've had fine debates about it on these boards with much data and good discussion. Two people both pro-science can disagree about how to interpret the data and what values to place on what outcomes. What is anti-science is to argue for a position by name-calling.
Hear, hear!

I'm really starting to worry about the emerging religion of Scientism. I'm an atheist and am glad for militant atheists, even, but I wouldn't want to simply outlaw religions (tax 'em bastards, though!!!!!)....

I'm also okay with GMO for myself but have no problems if folks want to know for themselves thanks to labeling and choose accordingly.

Et cetera.
  #195  
Old 02-24-2019, 05:11 AM
DavidChou is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post

So the old point stands: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
It's not an "extraordinary claim" that something may turn up later because current science is not as advanced as we imagine it to be -- never mind the well-documented cases of science colluding with industry on numerous occasions throughout history.

I don't fear GMOs myself but I have no problems with the sensible compromise BigT here had proposed for those who do.

Heck, racism and sexism were once "science" -- and now everyone's supposed to be all against it with equally fervent certainty, despite indications that there may be demographic-specific treatments, etc.
  #196  
Old 02-24-2019, 06:35 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
It would be quite an improvement if you read the damn thread. I've already answered your questions
Scroll up and find out what they are. Even CarnalK has taken a shot. Why don't you try too?

Quote:
why haven't you answered mine?
Because your "questions" amount to "Bernie once left out the 'socialist' part from 'I'm a democratic socialist'. Why don't you admit you're lying?"

The essential facts have been laid out for all to see, in this thread, by multiple posters. The rest is up to you.
  #197  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:45 AM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,095
Ya know, I like Bernie. I do. But I feel he's reaching too far, too fast, too much. Really, you don't burn down the house because you have a clogged drain.

Fixing health care, education costs and the ridiculous tax structure, is not going to happen in a day. Sure focus on those things as a platform, but laser in on one of them.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #198  
Old 02-24-2019, 09:22 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidChou View Post
Hear, hear!

I'm really starting to worry about the emerging religion of Scientism. ...
There is less an emerging religion of science than there is an emerging cult of anti-intellectualism with anti-science as one of its cornerstones and unfounded irrational fear as its main tactic.

It is quite the hijack from this thread but just to Europe for one step further. Consumers choosing to avoid a product based on irrational fears is one thing (so long as that does not cause greater societal harms) and I would be open to listing on a label "GM crop-free" so long as no health claims are made in the process. But in Europe their zero tolerance ban results in digging up and destroying 20 million euros worth of crop after a recall noted trace GM crop contamination at less than 0.005%. That's crazy. Meanwhile vaccine fears have resulted in emergence of measles.

The unifying theme is deep distrust and miserable misunderstanding of science. Of course throwing things about which there is no overwhelming consensus upon into the same baskets as those that there are is not helpful. FWIW the consensus among scientists about GM food consumption safety is as high as the consensus among scientists about human activity contribution to climate change; there is no similar science community consensus regard building more nuclear power plants.

Trying to rope this back to this thread - it would help to have a candidate who could communicate in a way that undercut some of the distrust of science and who got the differences. I do not believe that Sanders ticks off that box.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-24-2019 at 09:23 AM.
  #199  
Old 02-24-2019, 09:47 AM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 321
If its all on the up-and-up, I expect him to be the nominee. He's the only one I'll leave the house to vote for.
  #200  
Old 02-24-2019, 10:29 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,811
So Sanders is apparently finding foreign policy to be a tricky thing.

Venezuela comments v.1 were notable for his not supporting Guaidó as the legitimate leader of the country and declining to label Maduro as a dictator who should step down. A different stance than pretty much everyone else in the field who has made comments so far. Pretty negative reaction especially in Florida.

v.2 tried to tack a bit. Went to calling for the Venezuelan military to show restraint and for the Maduro government to allow humanitarian aid in ... which gets him "savaged" by "his supporters"

International policy is not his strength. Clearly. He may have been better off being one those who resisted the urge to twitter off.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017