Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I wouldn't prep for Jeb's political funeral yet guys. A lot of the reason support isn't flowing to him now (despite performing better as time goes on) is because of the Robot. As long as Rubio is around, Jeb can't corner the establishment vote and consolidate the anti-Truz crowd, due to the mistaken belief that the Robot is the only one who can win in a general.
I have yet to read any solid criticism of Sanders' economic policies from someone other than those invested in supporting Clinton, like bankers.
If a person's job title is "lobbyist" or "banker," I'm not going to trust their opinion on banking and the financial sector. There's an inherent conflict-of-interest.
You don't get to donate thousands of dollars to a candidate, then publish an attack on their opponent without admitting it in said article. Transparency.
edited 18th Feb '16 9:13:42 PM by SolipsistOwl
Bernie Sanders Economic Plans Questioned By Critics With Ties To Wall Street, Hillary Clinton
Laura Tyson and Austan Goolsbee were two of the signatories on a letter to Sanders criticizing his campaign for touting Professor Gerald Friedman’s analysis of his economic proposals. “We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan — claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence,” the letter said.
While respected economists and liberal columnists have condemned Friedman’s paper as far too optimistic, the Financial Times defended it on Thursday, writing that “a prolonged period of rapid growth in the U.S. is plausible, with the right policy mix.”
Goolsbee and Tyson — the latter of whom was a Bill Clinton appointee — both work for a financial industry that has faced withering attacks from Sanders. Tyson has held a lucrative seat on the board of directors at Morgan Stanley since 1997, shortly after she completed her time leading the Council of Economic Advisers. In 2013, Morgan Stanley paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 for a speech. The Wall Street mega-bank has been one of Clinton’s top sources of donations throughout her political career. The same bank employed Clinton’s top deputy at the U.S. State Department, both before and after his trip through Washington’s proverbial “revolving door.”
Obama 'third term' label concerns some with Clinton ties
Hillary Clinton’s Lead Shrinks as More Women Shift to Bernie Sanders, WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds
Comcast (mother company of MSNBC) exec to hold fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
Senator Cory Booker Gets More from Wall Street Than Any Member of Congress
Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court
Here's the response in question.
But more importantly, in that Quinnipiac poll, 55% believed Clinton would have a better chance in the general election, compared to 47% for Sanders. And then they managed to prove the opposite in that very same poll. Absolutely fascinating.
edited 18th Feb '16 10:31:23 PM by Eschaton
You have a couple options over how to respond to this. You can say that Krugman just doesn't like Sanders, and his criticism is based on that rather than a legitimate look at Sanders' plan. I've already spelled out above why I don't think that's the case. You can say that Krugman is simply, honestly mistaken in his analysis. I don't think that's especially likely either, given that other people have levelled much the same criticism at Sanders as Krugman has, but it's possible. Or you can accept that Krugman is correct and argue that Sanders is still a better candidate than Clinton despite this. I'm more sympathetic to this view, even if I don't agree personally.
However, simply saying "they have ties to Clinton and/or Wall Street, no wonder they oppose Sanders!" is not at all convincing. It completely ignores the possibility that they support Clinton over Sanders because they legitimately believe that her policies are better than his, or that their experience in the finance sector is what makes them qualified to comment on economic matters in the first place. It smacks of judging people based on whether or not they agree with your predetermined conclusions rather than based on the merit of the argument they're presenting.
edited 18th Feb '16 11:42:32 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I did not accuse Krugman of being an "Hillary shill." That was clearly in reference to other 'experts,' as pointed out by the article sourced by Potatoes Rock.
The article you linked does not provide any detailed analysis of Sanders' healthcare plan by Krugman. It's just a blog post of Krugman asserting that single-payer is a "virtual impossibility." I prefer more recent analysis that actually discusses the numbers.
Considering how much Krugman has pushed for single-payer in the past, I choose to dismiss his opinion because it seems based more in cynicism than anything concrete.
Presidential candidates are not typically expected to have a complete bill in place when pushing a platform, so of course Sanders' healthcare proposal won't be 100% complete. The point is to have an agenda to give Congress.
No one is asking Clinton how she'll reduce climate change, for example. She hasn't offered any suggestion as to how she would do it.
edited 19th Feb '16 12:14:05 AM by SolipsistOwl
Also, putting scare quotes around "experts" without actually addressing why you think they're wrong goes directly back to the attitude I mentioned in my last post, about making it seem like you're dismissing them because they're critical of Sanders, rather than based on actual evidence. Specific concerns have been raised: Sanders' plan appears to make highly optimistic assumptions in order to make its numbers work, and those assumptions appear unlikely to be reflected in reality. Your response has been "everyone saying that is a Clinton supporter or a Wall Street fatcat", which isn't actually a response at all. If a bunch of people say that the sky is blue and your response is "well, everyone who said that is a jerk", even if you're right and everyone who said that is a jerk, that doesn't make them wrong.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Krugman posted a massive and exhaustive line-by-line analysis of Sanders' plan, and ultimately came to the exact same conclusion: Sanders' plan is bad because it makes a lot of overly generous assumptions. Would you accept that?
Considering how much Krugman has pushed for single-payer in the past, I choose to dismiss his opinion because it seems based more in cynicism than anything concrete.
Also, that post is about a month old, and was made after Sanders released his health care reform plans. I'm not sure what about it needs to be "more recent", as Sanders' plan hasn't changed significantly in the meantime, as far as I'm aware. That's just another variation of the "not detailed enough" claim — the "not recent enough" claim, so we can argue about what constitutes "recent enough" instead of actually talking about the conclusion reached (that Sanders' plan is bad).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.A wall of text won't make your points any stronger or clearer—I already responded to them before.
1.) Disagreeing with Sanders' proposals is not good enough to prove why they're supposedly bad.
2.) It's obvious that the opinion on this issue from any lobbyist or financial sector worker is irrelevant to the discussion.
edited 19th Feb '16 12:40:58 AM by SolipsistOwl
Sorry not sorry, but he needs to actually do that first. "Shut up and trust me" is not a good argument. The end.
You haven't answered the question, though. Should we take that as a yes? Because otherwise it feels like if he does that you'll just be Moving the Goalposts further.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Because it's a bad meaningless argument that goes nowhere and proves nothing.
"Would you agree with me if I was correct?" Well yeah, but you need to be correct first. And no reason for that has yet been given.
To prove that I'm not moving any goalposts I'm going to say the same thing I said to Nihlus. Multiple sources, independently proving the same thing, with repeatable analysis. Or bust. Not the "He just says that and I agree with him because I feel like agreeing with him."
edited 19th Feb '16 12:53:04 AM by Luminosity
Interestingly enough, Krugman's column today examines this exact issue
, noting that if you dispute criticism of Sanders' economic plans by folks like Christina Romer and Alan Krueger
on the basis that they are "establishment shills", then you have essentially reduced the debate to one of name-calling, not serious policy.
What you have, in effect, declared is that any criticism of Sanders proves a priori that the person doing it is biased against him. You are also alienating people who could be your allies if you weren't so busy accusing them of being in the pocket of the Clinton Machine.
I, for example, am very interested in what Bernie has to say, and I support his ideas in a general sense, but from day one I wondered if he would ever produce concrete numbers to back up his claims. Now that these are being examined in the public arena, it looks very much like one of two things is happening: he's deeply wrong on the core economic calculations, or he is downplaying the reality in order to pitch hope to a disenfranchised public.
Then you get his supporters who declare any criticism to be proof of bias, and it makes it very hard to Feel the Bern. If they keep up this strident character assassination on anyone who disagrees with them, I may go with Clinton out of spite.
I will note this in addition: Nihlus was an asshole — basically a right-wing concern troll. I am a dedicated progressive, so trying to accuse folks like me of being tools of the system is balls-out stupid. We want Sanders' ideas to work, but he has, as yet, shown no proof that he understands what he's diving into.
edited 19th Feb '16 6:29:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That said, that wasn't my point in asking that question. The point was to determine what weight of evidence it would take to convince Solipsist that Sanders' plan was bad. The impression I'm left with so far is that nothing will.

Essentially, Bush represents the establishment in a way that even Marco Rubio cannot - if he can humiliate and destroy Bush sufficiently to make him drop out, he can become the most powerful of the Anti-Establishment candidates.
Because Bush represents the Bush Political Dynasty, power through money and birth. If Trump crushes him like a bug, the signal is sent to those dissenting Alt Right individuals and they'll switch over to him.
Crushing Cruz after such a thing is trivial - Cruz is hemorrhaging support, and people daily say what a bad, nasty guy he is.
You cannot run for President while being publicly talked about by everyone in such a way.
edited 18th Feb '16 5:20:19 PM by NickTheSwing