Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:52 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
You seem to be implying that any questionable ideas or associations by the Dems (even if it is ancient history) is automatically damaging to their chances, while Trump can do or say almost any idiotic thing (present tense) which indicates that he is unfit for office, and it won't move his polling needle down one pixel. Maybe you are right, but that's a pretty astonishing notion, tbh.

Yes its an astonishing notion, but evidence indicates its also true. At this point its pretty clear that everyone has their mind made up about Trump. Either you already realize that he is an incompetent, corrupt, narcissistic sociopath, or else you believe that all the charges against him are false news and are impervious to new evidence. Negative campaigning is going to be of limited value against Trump because its already baked in.

For the Dems on the other hand there is still room to fall. Whether Trump wins or not will depend on how many of those who have a negative opinion of Trump can be convinced that the Democrat candidate is just as bad or even worse.
  #752  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:09 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,886
In honor of the approximate one year anniversary of Bernie announcing his candidacy, here are some reactions at the time from the wise and brilliant pundits of the mass media, excerpted from here.

Quote:
The Washington Post’s Henry Olsen called him a “one-hit wonder,” adding: “After a few concerts that attract ever more ‘selective’ audiences, he will likely drop out and retire, his influence consigned to history.” (On Monday night, a whopping 7,500 people turned out for a Sanders rally headlined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as rock band The Strokes, in Durham, New Hampshire.)

On Twitter, Olsen’s fellow Post columnist Jennifer Rubin described Sanders as “yesterday’s news” and suggested he would face “stiff competition for youth vote” from Beto O’Rourke.

Yet another Post columnist, David Von Drehle, wrote how Sanders would find “that his moment is gone, his agenda absorbed by more plausible candidates, his future behind him.”

Then there was MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who claimed Sen. Elizabeth Warren would “blow out Bernie pretty early on. Bernie will lose his votes to her.” (Warren, for the record, came third in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire.)

MSNBC political contributor Jason Johnson went even further: “I see Bernie Sanders launching his campaign and by August, realizing he won’t be in the top five in Iowa, and dropping out.”
Don't ever change, media.
  #753  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The innocent civilians we blew to smithereens 20 years ago are still dead.

So are those killed by the socialist revolutionaries Bernie has travelled to visit and expressed such fondness for.
  #754  
Old 02-13-2020, 06:10 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
Sanders is running against a very weak field even now after so many people dropped out. As they say, in the land of the blind the one eyed guy is king.
  #755  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:15 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
...You seem to be implying that any questionable ideas or associations by the Dems (even if it is ancient history) is automatically damaging to their chances, while Trump can do or say almost any idiotic thing (present tense) which indicates that he is unfit for office, and it won't move his polling needle down one pixel. Maybe you are right, but that's a pretty astonishing notion, tbh....
As noted above, there are certainly double standards in politics. Trump said and did all those awful things, and is still saying and doing them, and the vast majority of Republican voters voted for him and still love him. He has a personality cult and it's working for him bigtime.

Most voters, and I daresay most Democrats, don't yet know about the more unappealing things in Sanders's background that I mentioned. And when they learn about them, as they surely will from the GOP attack machine when and if Bernie secures the Democratic nomination, it will not be politically helpful to him, to say the least.
  #756  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:30 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,575
I've changed my opinion since I posted in August. Now, I believe he should be the nominee if the primary process shows that he is getting the strongest support. People criticize his position because they say his initiatives are too expensive, but the reality is that they could probably be paid for by taking back that trillion dollar plus tax break that Trump gave to the millionaires and billionaires that support him.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #757  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:53 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,701
How do we pay for it? How? How?

No not medicare. I mean endless wars corruption and rightie nihilism. medicare is a drop in the bucket.

If you're gooinig to complain that we can't afford health care you must be livid about the conservatives nihilism, profilgacy and waste? Right? Hello...? Hello.....?
  #758  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:55 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Sanders is running against a very weak field even now after so many people dropped out. As they say, in the land of the blind the one eyed guy is king.
You know it's 2020 in the US?
  #759  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:36 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
He isn't left enough. American politics that you have is too easily bought with money. It's not the time for moderate solutions like Sanders. You need a clean slate, there is too much dead wood.
  #760  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,803
In a Condorcet vote, Bernie leads all the other Democrats, and all by double-digits except for Biden and Warren. So even if the rest of the party coalesces around a single alternative, Bernie still could have an advantage (and possibly a big advantage).

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...00120892248064
  #761  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:47 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
The problem remains that with Sanders, the American empire may regain strength temporarily.

We still have the problem of an aggressive state, which has demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons against stubborn yet weakened enemies.
  #762  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:23 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,701
Geez, if people aren't robbing me and giving it to corporations and then greasing me a little once in a while, I just won't feel like an american. Where's my gun!

Spend my money on infrastructure? "Infrastructure ' is just code for welfare.
  #763  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:39 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Geez, if people aren't robbing me and giving it to corporations and then greasing me a little once in a while, I just won't feel like an american. Where's my gun!

Spend my money on infrastructure? "Infrastructure ' is just code for welfare.
Yes, it is welfare for corporations whom make money from high speed trains. But this is better than high speed nuclear missiles.

Or woke-war crimes drone strikes for everyone.
  #764  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:13 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,997
Ok. I’m (temporarily) convinced. If Bernie comes in first in Nevada and second or better in South Carolina, I’ll vote for him in the primary. I’m in Texas so I’ll be voting on Super Tuesday. I’m going to go with whoever seems likeliest to beat Trump, and I’m coming around to thinking Bernie just might be able to pull it off.
  #765  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:23 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
People criticize his position because they say his initiatives are too expensive, but the reality is that they could probably be paid for by taking back that trillion dollar plus tax break that Trump gave to the millionaires and billionaires that support him.
They can't. Reversing those cuts would barely scratch the surface.

First, it wasn't a trillion dollar a year tax cut. The total deficit increased to about 1 trillion but we weren't running a balanced budget beforehand. We ran a 666 billion dollar deficit in 2017 before the change kicked in. What it was was close to a trillion dollar estimate cost across the normal CBO used 10 year period. Some of the early cuts phase out in the bill passed and dynamic effects take time so the first year was a bigger chunk. So that is 1 trillion for a decade.

The left leaning Urban Institute did a cost estimate in 2017. That was the year Sanders first put meat on the campaign slogan of Medicare for All with actual legislation. Their estimate was increased government costs of $32 trillion across a decade. They do reference a lowball study in their finding where net costs only went up by $24.3 trillion across a decade.

Reversing the Trump tax cuts only covers about 3.1-4.1% of paying just for Medicare for All using those two cost estimates. That is before we include the costs of all his other proposals.
  #766  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:26 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
Medicare for all is cheaper than private health care
  #767  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:31 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Ok. I’m (temporarily) convinced. If Bernie comes in first in Nevada and second or better in South Carolina, I’ll vote for him in the primary. I’m in Texas so I’ll be voting on Super Tuesday. I’m going to go with whoever seems likeliest to beat Trump, and I’m coming around to thinking Bernie just might be able to pull it off.
I will vote for him if he's on the final ticket. I think he is a fantastic, career politician. I think he wants what's best. But I really, REALLY don't see how getting the nom is possible.

1) His age and health are a major point. I'm not sure he'll be able to stay healthy on the campaign and in the WH. He'll need a very strong VP candidate.

2) Dems don't fully support him. REALLY. I feel one of the big reasons Hillary got it over Bernie was he was barely a democrat in 2016 to go for the nomination. And people point out that there will still be a GOP Senate after this election. Even if the Senate went to the Dems, I feel there will still be plenty of non-supporting senators on issues, especially on financial ones.

Frankly, I see him as a better cabinet member or Secretary of something in a new administration. And I think the longer he stays in, the less of a chance for someone to overtake Trump. His candidate support would really help the Dem nominee.

Maybe him just ending his bid would be for the best for the Democrats' side.
  #768  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I will vote for him if he's on the final ticket. I think he is a fantastic, career politician. I think he wants what's best. But I really, REALLY don't see how getting the nom is possible.

1) His age and health are a major point. I'm not sure he'll be able to stay healthy on the campaign and in the WH. He'll need a very strong VP candidate.

2) Dems don't fully support him. REALLY. I feel one of the big reasons Hillary got it over Bernie was he was barely a democrat in 2016 to go for the nomination. And people point out that there will still be a GOP Senate after this election. Even if the Senate went to the Dems, I feel there will still be plenty of non-supporting senators on issues, especially on financial ones.

Frankly, I see him as a better cabinet member or Secretary of something in a new administration. And I think the longer he stays in, the less of a chance for someone to overtake Trump. His candidate support would really help the Dem nominee.

Maybe him just ending his bid would be for the best for the Democrats' side.
Nate Silver has Bernie as the most likely candidate by about 3-1 to get the nomination. The likelihood that he'd drop out when he's the frontrunner, and with no signs of losing support, is pretty close to zero.
  #769  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:54 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nate Silver has Bernie as the most likely candidate by about 3-1 to get the nomination. The likelihood that he'd drop out when he's the frontrunner, and with no signs of losing support, is pretty close to zero.
Nate Silver still has a site after last election?? I had no idea. I don't think he'd be able to predict the most popular ice cream flavor on national chocolate day.
  #770  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Nate Silver still has a site after last election?? I had no idea. I don't think he'd be able to predict the most popular ice cream flavor on national chocolate day.
Nate Silver was by far the closest data-tracking pundit to be correct in 2016 (he had Trump as about a 1 in 3 chance to win, and was only off by more than 1 or 2 points in about 3 states), and he was dead-on in 2018. If you think Nate Silver's reputation has suffered, you haven't been paying attention. He was amazing in '08 and '12, very close in '16, and amazing again in '18. 1 in 3 chance things happen about 1 time out of 3.
  #771  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:16 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nate Silver was by far the closest data-tracking pundit to be correct in 2016 (he had Trump as about a 1 in 3 chance to win, and was only off by more than 1 or 2 points in about 3 states), and he was dead-on in 2018. If you think Nate Silver's reputation has suffered, you haven't been paying attention. He was amazing in '08 and '12, very close in '16, and amazing again in '18. 1 in 3 chance things happen about 1 time out of 3.
Sure, he’s right sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit. But when I dropped my ballot at 8 am in CA for Hillary, 538 had her at about 71%. I just don’t trust poll data.

I think Bernie is amazing yet worn out. I think he should consider retiring in a few years, too. And I don’t think enough Dems support him for dumbass reasons, like not being a “committed” democrat. Or something dopey like that.
  #772  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Sure, he’s right sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit. But when I dropped my ballot at 8 am in CA for Hillary, 538 had her at about 71%. I just don’t trust poll data.
71% chance to win (which is just about 2 out of 3 -- not exactly a certainty). It had her right on the nose for the popular vote -- about 2-3 points ahead. The polling was only off in 2-3 states, and only then by a few points. The vast majority of the polling was correct. If you don't trust poll data, then it's because you don't understand how accurate it has been in recent elections.

Quote:
I think Bernie is amazing yet worn out. I think he should consider retiring in a few years, too. And I don’t think enough Dems support him for dumbass reasons, like not being a “committed” democrat. Or something dopey like that.
We'll see. Right now, he's ahead, and in the lead in polling.
  #773  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:45 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Maybe him just ending his bid would be for the best for the Democrats' side.
I would say that of every last one of them. I'm for Amy, but her staff issues are real. I'm for Warren, but you just can't convince a lot of swing voters that she didn't commit careerist affirmative action fraud. I'm for Pete, but hie's only a little better qualified than Steyer, and the lies my imagination tells me Trump and Company would throw out against Buttegieg are unspeakable. As for Bloomberg, we can start with my wanting someone who will serve two terms, and go on to the, if possible, worse than Trump business conflicts of interest. Who did I miss?

Governors have the best chance of gaining the presidency -- and none of the eight remaining candidate have that qualification. They should push the Democratic Governors Association into a room and not let them leave until the conclave has selected one of their own. But I don't see who has any more responsibility to fall on their sword than anyone else
  #774  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:27 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Sure, he’s right sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit. But when I dropped my ballot at 8 am in CA for Hillary, 538 had her at about 71%. I just don’t trust poll data.
Have you ever watched baseball? If a batter comes to the plate with a batting average of .290, and he gets a hit, do you conclude the statistician has failed?

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-14-2020 at 10:31 PM.
  #775  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:37 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,132
Three statisticians went hunting. After about an hour, a deer ran through a clearing not far away. One statistician shot just in front of the deer, and another shot just behind it. The third statistician shouted, "We got it!"
  #776  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:34 AM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
Even Nate accepts Bernie is going to win.

Green new deal, deal with global warming.

End belligerent foreign policy.

Tax billionaires their ill gotten gains

No more worrying about hospital bills, this must be so exciting for you
  #777  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:06 AM
Mr. Duality is offline
Luminary
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
They can't. Reversing those cuts would barely scratch the surface.

First, it wasn't a trillion dollar a year tax cut. The total deficit increased to about 1 trillion but we weren't running a balanced budget beforehand. We ran a 666 billion dollar deficit in 2017 before the change kicked in. What it was was close to a trillion dollar estimate cost across the normal CBO used 10 year period. Some of the early cuts phase out in the bill passed and dynamic effects take time so the first year was a bigger chunk. So that is 1 trillion for a decade.

The left leaning Urban Institute did a cost estimate in 2017. That was the year Sanders first put meat on the campaign slogan of Medicare for All with actual legislation. Their estimate was increased government costs of $32 trillion across a decade. They do reference a lowball study in their finding where net costs only went up by $24.3 trillion across a decade.

Reversing the Trump tax cuts only covers about 3.1-4.1% of paying just for Medicare for All using those two cost estimates. That is before we include the costs of all his other proposals.
Are you forgetting that people would no longer need to pay for private health insurance? The rest of the civilized world pays half or less of what we do (per capita) for health care and gets measurably better results. They must be doing something right.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #778  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:00 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,813
As long as Bernie selects a healthy fairly young VP, preferably Michelle Obama, I'm in. I don't like him nearly as much as Warren, but I will absolutely get behind him.
  #779  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:53 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nate Silver was by far the closest data-tracking pundit to be correct in 2016 (he had Trump as about a 1 in 3 chance to win, and was only off by more than 1 or 2 points in about 3 states), and he was dead-on in 2018. If you think Nate Silver's reputation has suffered, you haven't been paying attention. He was amazing in '08 and '12, very close in '16, and amazing again in '18. 1 in 3 chance things happen about 1 time out of 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Have you ever watched baseball? If a batter comes to the plate with a batting average of .290, and he gets a hit, do you conclude the statistician has failed?
These. Never Rarely bet against a baseball statistician. The odds say that he will probably be right, within the margin of error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
Governors have the best chance of gaining the presidency -- and none of the eight remaining candidate have that qualification. They should push the Democratic Governors Association into a room and not let them leave until the conclave has selected one of their own. But I don't see who has any more responsibility to fall on their sword than anyone else
JB Pritzker, governor of Illinois, is richer (and fatter?) than Trump and a solid Dem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
As long as Bernie selects a healthy fairly young VP, preferably Michelle Obama, I'm in. I don't like him nearly as much as Warren, but I will absolutely get behind him.
Can you imagine Michelle taking on Mitch McConnell? That's not a job of the president, but of the veep.
  #780  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:27 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,653
Looks like we're getting down to the nitty-gritty, as us fossils used to say. Who will Bernie pick as his Veep candidate? That's immeasurably more important now than in previous campaigns. Danny Quayle and Dickie Cheney, and even lovely Sarah Palin and probably Prissy Pence, were obvious shields against assassination - off the Prez and see what horror you'll unleash! With Bernie it's: Who does America want to as Prez when your heart craps out just after inauguration?

Which reminds me of a quirk of fate. Herbert Hoover's Veep was a former Senate Majority Leader, Charles Curtis, who was an enrolled member of the Kaw (Kansa) Nation. Had Hoover kicked off in office, the US would have had a Native American as president. Can't call him Pocahontas.
  #781  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:36 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,884
While I agree with many of his policy positions I believe he has zero leadership or legislative skill. He would be relying entirely on Nancy Pelosi to enact anything, so essentially Sanders’spolicy positions would have nearly zero political impact. I don’t believe he has the ability to persuade legislators to go along with anything.

Of course it would be better than any Republican.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #782  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nate Silver has Bernie as the most likely candidate by about 3-1 to get the nomination. ...
I think you are misreading the site, confusing odds of having "a majority of delegates "("no one" leads) with odds of "getting the nomination". And yes he has almost three times a better chance of that than does second place Biden right now. When the category of "no one" getting the majority leads the two are not the same thing. Silver makes no prognostication on what happens after "no one" gets a majority, even if Sanders has the plurality.

Still your point is valid: while (barely) behind Buttigieg in the delegate count he is in the solid best odds position by many sorts of analysis, including Silver's model. And there would be no expectation for him to drop out until the delegate count is finished and went against him even if he was in the dumpster. Not while he still has a soapbox to his name.
  #783  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,518
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy;22139761]... I'm for Warren, but you just can't convince a lot of swing voters that she didn't commit careerist affirmative action fraud. I.../QUOTE]

She didnt. She was asked to self-identify as to what she considered herself. That's fine. I can ID myself as black, and it's not fraud.

She didnt say she was a member of a recognized tribe, which is fraud.
  #784  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I think you are misreading the site, confusing odds of having "a majority of delegates "("no one" leads) with odds of "getting the nomination". And yes he has almost three times a better chance of that than does second place Biden right now. When the category of "no one" getting the majority leads the two are not the same thing. Silver makes no prognostication on what happens after "no one" gets a majority, even if Sanders has the plurality.

Still your point is valid: while (barely) behind Buttigieg in the delegate count he is in the solid best odds position by many sorts of analysis, including Silver's model. And there would be no expectation for him to drop out until the delegate count is finished and went against him even if he was in the dumpster. Not while he still has a soapbox to his name.
You're right, thanks.
  #785  
Old 02-15-2020, 06:24 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,422
Quote:
She didnt. She was asked to self-identify as to what she considered herself. That's fine. I can ID myself as black, and it's not fraud.

She didnt say she was a member of a recognized tribe, which is fraud.
Of course its fraud. If I want to lie to people in a bar and tell them I am from the Pitcairn Islands, then that is fine. However, if I say that I am from the Pitcairn Islands so I get preferential job placement or college admissions, then that is absolutely fraud. How could it be otherwise?

If you ID yourself as black (and I am assuming that you are not) for the same fraudulent purpose, then that is, well, fraud.

And further, for all of these "Bernie isn't a communist" protests, that's not what matters. What matters is what a swing voter believes. The 10 second sound bite wins; you don't get a minute and a half to rebut. This holds true whether your rebuttal is correct or not.

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-15-2020 at 06:25 PM.
  #786  
Old 02-15-2020, 06:50 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,479
Bernie's platform is full of ideas that are individually disqualifying. National rent control? Rename it the national Slum Creation and Apartment Shortage act. His billionaire taxes will do a lot of damage to investment. Medicare for All would cost almost as much as the entire U.S. budget. His taxes on the rich don't even cover a third of his proposed spending.

One of the problems Democrats will have with Bernie's electability is that Democrats are afraid to really engage him on his leftism for fear of angering the base of the party, so he's going relatively unchallenged. But if he becomes a candidate in the general he's going to have to explain his support for a series of shitty left-wing dictators, his water carrying for the Soviet Union, and about a hundred other crazy things he's said in the past.

"It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food... That is a good thing!"

- Bernie Sanders
  #787  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Of course its fraud. If I want to lie to people in a bar and tell them I am from the Pitcairn Islands, then that is fine. However, if I say that I am from the Pitcairn Islands so I get preferential job placement or college admissions, then that is absolutely fraud. How could it be otherwise?

If you ID yourself as black (and I am assuming that you are not) for the same fraudulent purpose, then that is, well, fraud.
...
Not the way they worded the questionnaire. It asked how she personally self-identified. She had been told by her Mom she was native American, and that's how she identified herself.

No, not if I self identity as black, even if I dont look it. Say I grew up in a black neighborhood, hung out in the hood, had black friends, and my mother told me her Mother was black. If I thought I was part black, how is that fraud?

Last edited by DrDeth; 02-15-2020 at 09:12 PM.
  #788  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:50 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not the way they worded the questionnaire. It asked how she personally self-identified. She had been told by her Mom she was native American, and that's how she identified herself.

No, not if I self identity as black, even if I dont look it. Say I grew up in a black neighborhood, hung out in the hood, had black friends, and my mother told me her Mother was black. If I thought I was part black, how is that fraud?
I'll drop the hijack after this, but if these identifiers are to mean anything for the people giving out the preferences (affirmative action programs, United Negro College Fund, tribal groups, etc.) then there needs to be a higher standard that one's own subjective belief which can be easily falsified.

In almost every white family there are rumors of Native American blood somewhere in the distant past, including mine. AFAIK, nobody except Warren has used those rumors for personal benefit. It speaks to her judgment more than anything.

But Sam Stone is right. The GOP will have a field day with Bernie Sanders. People are never ready for radical change, whether that is from the left or from the right.
  #789  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'll drop the hijack after this, but if these identifiers are to mean anything for the people giving out the preferences (affirmative action programs, United Negro College Fund, tribal groups, etc.) then there needs to be a higher standard that one's own subjective belief which can be easily falsified.

In almost every white family there are rumors of Native American blood somewhere in the distant past, including mine. AFAIK, nobody except Warren has used those rumors for personal benefit. It speaks to her judgment more than anything.
There is. If they ask if you are a member of a Federally recognized tribe, then either you are- or are not. What you feel you are, doesnt enter into it.


And we have no idea if she benefited from it. In fact, give the date, that's highly doubtful.

The way they worded the questionnaire, her answer was legit.
  #790  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:58 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
In almost every white family there are rumors of Native American blood somewhere in the distant past, including mine. AFAIK, nobody except Warren has used those rumors for personal benefit. It speaks to her judgment more than anything.
So you're saying that Warren is singularly bad, right? She alone was nefarious enough to concoct this evil plan and put it into action, right? She's like a fucking supervillian, isn't she? Clearly heinous and prolly dangerous, too, amirite?

  #791  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:31 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,132
Her dog is certainly cute, though: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/polit...ley/index.html
  #792  
Old 02-16-2020, 01:46 AM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
Are you forgetting that people would no longer need to pay for private health insurance?
I wasn't forgetting it. I was intentionally not including the effect because it was completely irrelevant to my point. There is some value to looking at total cost to society. There is also value as looking at only the costs to the government. Ultimately the federal government is going to have to fund federal expenditures. There is value in looking at only those expenditures, and how we fund them, as well. We barely scratch the surface with reversing the Trump tax cuts. There are going to be significant tax increases needed to raise the remaining 23-32 trillion dollars. Warren got chewed up by the Democratic party leaning electorate, and abandoned her full throated support of Medicare for All, when she drafted a plan to raise less than half the new costs.

Sanders has mostly skated by focusing on vague talking points about the billionaire class and focusing only on society wide cost evaluation. He let Warren take the hit by trying to draft a plan to actual fund it. That is crafty politics. I give him that.

Quote:
The rest of the civilized world pays half or less of what we do (per capita) for health care and gets measurably better results. They must be doing something right.
That talking point works, with limitations, for generic universal health care proposals that are roughly comparable to those other national programs. Medicare for All
Quote:
has no analog among the single-payer systems that currently exist. By covering a more comprehensive set of benefits and asking no cost sharing of enrollees, it is likely to cost the government significantly more than programs other countries have adopted.
It is a lot harder to justify the savings argument by comparison when there is no comparable system. We could literally throw a dart at a map of Europe to identity a cheaper system per capita than Sanders has proposed. US spending on healthcare in 2017 was 3.5 trillion. That was the same year that the cite I used estimated 3.2 trilliion average per year in the first decade of M4A. We probably shouldn't ignore that the average cost is pushed down a bit by delaying replacement of current Medicare with the more comprehensive, and costly, M4A. Despite the branding of M4A it is not Medicare as it exists. Most of the cost estimates of M4A put it at or near the 32 trillion across a decade price point. We are not saving half if Sanders' proposal becomes law \. We will be lucky to save anything society wide with the more common estimates around the 32 trillion I cited. If we include the inefficiencies and dynamic effects of the taxes to fund it on the cost side, we could easily be looking at a system that is more costly than what we have now.

Medicare for All is nothing like the current Medicare. It is nothing like any any existing UHC system in the world. It is likely not much, if any, cheaper than the existing systems. We should stop pretending that they give us insight into what Medicare for All would be like.
  #793  
Old 02-16-2020, 03:44 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
Are you forgetting that people would no longer need to pay for private health insurance?
How are you, or Bernie, going to get the money that currently goes into private health insurance into Medicare? Are you effectively going to say that all of the current fees individuals and businesses pay to private health insurers will instead be paid to the government? That's a tax. It might ultimately be a more efficient way of charging people for health care, but you're not going to get around the fact that you're taking away people's current health insurance and replacing it with government supplied health insurance, and taxing them or their employer while doing so. Bernie is either going to have to be honest that he'll have to impose a national health tax in order to pay for national health care, or try to avoid the subject. Doing the former will lose him all the voters who are adverse to increased taxes. Doing the latter will generate accusations that he's making promises he can't pay for. And that's just starting with Medicare for All. There's also College for All, Housing for All, Post Office Banking for All, High Speed Internet for All,and Jobs for All. At least he's not touting the Green New Deal with the "For All" tag.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
The rest of the civilized world pays half or less of what we do (per capita) for health care and gets measurably better results. They must be doing something right.
Other countries have had more time to work on their national health systems, realise economies of scale and impose cost controls. You can't take the benefits of a system that's been developed over decades and magically transfer them across overnight. Also, those comparisons are usually aggregate comparisons. Somebody with good health insurance in the US is receiving health care on par with almost all other developed countries. It's great that Bernie wants to expand health care coverage to the poor. But telling the already well-insured that they're going to pay more for what they're already getting isn't going to be a good sales pitch.
  #794  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:12 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
if I self identity as black, even if I dont look it. Say I grew up in a black neighborhood, hung out in the hood, had black friends, and my mother told me her Mother was black. If I thought I was part black, how is that fraud?
it may not be fraud for you, as a guy who honestly feels part black, say, while sharing a beer with me at a bar and listening to black-inspired music.
But if you're a public figure, expect a higher standard.

Did Warren ever "hang out in the hood" with her native tribal friends? Did she ever have any such friends? Did she ever wear traditional clothing, sing a traditional song, eat a traditional food, learn a couple words of her traditional language, celebrate a traditional holiday?
Did she ever DO anything based on her native heritage?
If not, then she's making a fraudulent claim. That's not good for a law professor at Harvard, and it's even worse for a President.


[on edit: my apologies for the hijack. The tread topic is Sanders.)

Last edited by chappachula; 02-16-2020 at 06:14 AM.
  #795  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:29 AM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
Are you forgetting that people would no longer need to pay for private health insurance?
In every country with single payer I know of, only poor people feel this way. Everyone else needs a supplementary policy. U.S. Medicare is an example, but the same in true in Britain, and in Canada.

The Affordable Care Act model, with competing insurers, as in Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, despite having multiple payers in those nations, results in individuals, and families only having one payer. This is because competing payers compete to provide a care package that avoids need for separate private health insurance.

Google heath care in the Netherlands.

The single payer model, despite being a point of nationalist pride in the UK, doesn't work well, and isn't a likely choice for the U.S. Getting to universal coverage will be delayed by having an ideologue president who doesn't realize that the Obama administration already sent us in the right direction.

Plus, some measure of cooperation from the Supreme Court is needed for any universal plan. And with Bernie as president, the Supreme Court will be increasingly conservative due to his inability to fill vacancies. While this is a risk for any future Democratic candidate, it is worse for Bernie, because he has a lesser chance of coattails that would result in a Democratic Senate.
  #796  
Old 02-16-2020, 07:00 AM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
In every country with single payer I know of, only poor people feel this way. Everyone else needs a supplementary policy. U.S. Medicare is an example, but the same in true in Britain, and in Canada.
While true, currently in Canada, we are debating having universal pharmacare, which is the big reason for supplemental insurance. I hope it passes, I view medicare the same way I view other social services. It is something that every person needs at some point, and it is nice to know every Canadian has access to those services. There are innumerable secondary benefits to easy access to medical care as well. I've never understood the counterargument to UHC.
  #797  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:27 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,081
septimus wrote in another thread:
‘And — this is very important — even if [Bernie Sanders] is elected, many poorly informed voters who do vote for him, will vote Republican in down-ticket races to "balance" against his leftism. Sanders as nominee means that Moscow Mitch will control the Senate for at least two more years.’

Interesting observation. I just thought it needed to be said in this thread as well.
  #798  
Old 02-16-2020, 12:14 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,693
An excellent article on how utterly despicable Bernie is. Was it written by a neoliberal corporate establishment Wall Street shill like myself? No, it was written by a Black person to the left of Sanders.

https://bravenewsblog.com/2020/02/13...hhold-my-vote/
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 02-16-2020 at 12:14 PM.
  #799  
Old 02-16-2020, 01:02 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
People are never ready for radical change, whether that is from the left or from the right.
Are you from Earth 2?
  #800  
Old 02-16-2020, 01:06 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,884
I don’t listen to anyone who speaks in terms of “owing” votes. There will a choice to make—Trump or the Democratic nominee. That’s it. There are no other possible outcomes. If you don’t vote for the Democratic nominee, that’s a vote for Trump. Period.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
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 05:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017