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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li][ul][li] 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.[/ul][/li][ul][li] reduce income at all levels. My cite says [/li][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.
[/quote]
Let’s see your cite claiming that the Clinton tax increases would reduce after tax income for the bottom 50% by that much.[/ul]
[ul][li]and further bloat the national debt. Again, let’s see your cite that the Clinton tax increases would increase the national debt.[/ul]Or you can try to hand-wave and obfuscate. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
:rolleyes: 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.
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?
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.
Of course, the Bernheads always respond to the point about potential GOP attack ads with “who cares, they will attack any Democratic nominee”. :smack: 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.
Cosigned.
Good question.
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.
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.
Bernie Sanders also hired Faiz Shakir as campaign manager and Analilia Mejia as national political director and Sarah Badawi as deputy political director.
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.’