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
While that wasn't my main or only concern with Sanders (and far from the main issue I have with Trump), one reason I didn't approve of Sanders (besides my more conservative stances) was because he just reminded me way too much of this one angry old guy who would rant about the establishment on an actual soapbox whom I occasionally saw on campus back when I was attending college.
Even though some of the things he ranted about rang true to me, I would not want that man in the Oval Office if there was a more qualified candidate to choose.
edited 21st May '17 9:15:32 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedAnd when it came down to it, he wanted to enact plans that would require taxation that would make even Nordic countries pause.
Honestly, his college plan wasn't THAT bad (just needed some tweaks, which Hillary and co corrected in July of last year)
His healthcare "plan", on the other hand, was so utterly dreadful I'm surprised he wasn't laughed out of the room.
New Survey coming this weekend!Seriously, a lot of people seem to forget the point of debating isn't to convince the ones you're debating against, but those who are watching.
I get why, catharsis and all, but a lot of talk about realism here really just comes off as back-patting, and, well, smugness. And not the kind of smugness of people complaining about "experts and their data", actual smugness.
edited 21st May '17 9:28:35 AM by LSBK
I'd say it's more about frustration about the double standard that allows those on the right to get away with fucking awful behavior, but yeah, it looks like genuine smugness to people who aren't on the intimate inside of this argument.
Basically, giving into the devil on our shoulders is not a good long term strategy.
![]()
If you let the person you are arguing with get away with lie after lie after lie, the people watching are going to assume that person is telling the truth.
There is a point at which the need to point out how full of crap someone is trump's politeness. That point is pretty deep into the conversation, and it should never be a first resort, but there is a time and a place for throwing out politeness and pointing out that someone is a lying liar who lies. That's what Cooper did here.
edited 21st May '17 9:32:02 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Looking through his plans with a bit of a Nordic eye, being from that part of the world myself, I'm not really seeing it? Like, I'm definitely seeing things that would require a pretty substantial tax hike, don't get me wrong, but the Nordic model finances a lot more than just healthcare, even if our healthcare systems are pretty inefficient. note
It's also things like unemployment services, student stipends, public infrastructure, subsidies for partially-state owned companies like the unfortunately named DONG note Energy company, that sort of thing.
You can't enact single-payer healthcare without a tax hike on everyone, not just the upper 1%, even in a country with as absurd wealth distribution as the US - it's simply too expensive - but it's far from the only thing my tax money goes to.
That's not to say I like the guy - he's hovering somewhere between a genuine idealist with whom I disagree and a career politician who just happens to say some nice things.
edited 21st May '17 9:45:00 AM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.![]()
I don't know the full context about Cooper and what he said so I'm not talking about him. I'm thinking about more than a few people here, and things they tend to say in general. And again, I get it, I just don't think it would be anywhere near as productive as they make it out to be, and is more about venting than actual progress.
Edit: And no, I'm not saying those people don't actually want progress, just that emotions blur things from time to time (to time).
edited 21st May '17 9:36:07 AM by LSBK
![]()
Sanders also wanted to fix infrastructure and offer free college, among other things. He would have had to raise taxes significantly, and not just for the 1%. I can't imagine Congress approving his budget plan even if it wasn't GOP dominated. And if they did, I imagine Sanders' approval ratings would plummet after the first April his taxes took effect.
edited 21st May '17 9:40:59 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedOn a different note... Have the GOP and/or Trump given a clear tax plan yet?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Hah, no. Not at all. What they have provided is rather light on details, though the general gist of it is more of the same ol' "trickle-down" bullshit to justify a large corporate tax cut and killing the ACA.
Here's an opinion piece from Forbes on the plan.
edited 21st May '17 9:44:57 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThis is true, I'm just pointing out that not all of it was pie-in-the-sky.
And honestly, as far as first-world countries go, the only ones that don't offer some kind of free or subsidized university attendance is the Anglosphere. Everyone else jumped on that train decades ago.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
You've got to remember that Fox is approaching this from a position of everything Sanders does being bad, you can't have a logical argument over it. Everything Sanders does inherently requires the impossibly to be achieved and the US to go further left than the Nords, because Fox sees that as an inherent part of Sanders proposing a policy.
As for the Cooper situation, there is always another option, just cut the guy off, either cut his mic or end the call. When people come in here and refuse to stop spouting bullshit we don't insult them (okay we do, but the mods don't), we ban them and make them go away.
Just repeats what was eventually done with Conway.
Honestly the media will have stepped up its game for when when instead of "president Trump claims [absurd and obviously false thing]" the headline reads "president Trump falsely claims [bsurd and obviously false thing]".
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI agree with ámbar, there is moment when you need to cut shit down, but also we have to be carefull or it devolpt in this "we are right therefore I can said whatever I want" which why Trump manage to get the primeries, after all people like the shit taken who inuslt are always right, people have left the GOP to walk wait with this for far to long
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"That may not be entirely true if we ultimately go the route of "Medicare for All", since the Medicare program in the United States already has several levels of cost sharing (co-insurance, premiums, and even deductibles), but I suppose at that point it really wouldn't be true single-payer depending on how strict a definition you use.
The policy goals themselves were not pie-in-the-sky, but Sander's plan to implement them absolutely was. It was the left-wing version of voodoo economics. Instead of claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing economic growth, he was claiming that single-payer health care pays for itself by increasing administrative efficiency and eliminating profit margins.
And don't get me wrong, lower taxes do increase economic growth and single-payer health care does lower costs. But neither effect is anywhere near large enough to pay for themselves. Anyone claiming otherwise — on either side — is either deluding themselves or lying to people.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.By default, single payer means that the healthcare money is paid for by taxes instead of premiums. Lack of profit margins and lack of duplicate infrastructure (which occurs whenever there is more than one healthcare plan available in a given region) save some money, but healthcare costs still exist.
A practical consequence might be that people making unhealthy choices won't pay for them in terms of higher premiums. Apart from the fact that voluntary choices are only partially and indirectly dependent from one's own actions ("one's health is in large part a matter of luck and of the actions of others") I do have a sneaking feeling that lifestyle is by and in large completely insensitive to such feedback mechanisms, so this effect may not be very important.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSilsaw
You know what? I'm tired of your disengenous bullshit and dumbass straw man arguments because I call Sanders out on his moronic ideas because he can't enact policy past the establishment is evil and the millionaire and billionaire class.
"Fox thinks Everything Sanders does is bad."
Completely ignores everything I've said about his college plan
Fuck outta here
edited 21st May '17 10:18:36 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!@Silasw and Tactical Fox
Guys, how about we don't let this go any further. You're both valued posters in this thread, I for one happen to like the both of you, and I'd rather not see you tear strips off of each other. Fox, your dislike of Sanders can occasionally reach the point where you seem to be going after him for personal reasons rather than actual policy disputes. Silas, what you said about Fox there still crosses the line from polite into rude, particularly since Fox did state in the same post that he had no real issues with Sanders' college plan.
Obviously I'm not always the king of civility myself, but if Mad Skillz and I can mostly resist the urge to shred one another, I'm sure you guys can too. Save up that anger for the next time a Trump troll visits the thread; lord knows we're probably overdue for it.
edited 21st May '17 10:27:14 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
(in response to the conversation of how to convince people and deal with the stereotypes force fed by conservative media outlets)
The best way to convince people, is not, contrary to popular belief, to state facts at them. That's not how our brains work.
People respond to emotional connections, and that's why I think we desperately need face to face persuasion campaigns. I feel like both sides have lost track of the fact that the other side are people too. If you only hear about the bad things one side or the other have done, it's hard to see them as people, and only as a vaguely threatening idea. That's where face to face persuasion comes in. If you have a real person in front of you, you suddenly can't see them as just a stereotype. They are a person, just like you, with values they believe in and reasons for why they believe what they do.
edited 21st May '17 10:29:28 AM by megaeliz
I do wonder if the partisanship in the US is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of your campaigning is done via ads on TV/radio/the internet, it means you're always talking at your target voters instead of with them.
Could that be a side benefit of campaign finance reform? If you can't afford to throw millions into TV ads campaigns may have to focus instead on good old fashioned door to door campaigning, you can have a conversation on the doorstop (some times, some people slam the door in your face) and thus make the other side see you as much more real.
Now I really want to know what you said back to me.
My apologises as well, I got a wee bit frustrated there and should have been nicer.
edited 21st May '17 10:38:19 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDoor to door campaigning isn't always practical in the US. There's over 300 million people. That's just too many people to visit. Town Halls and campaign Q&A sessions can work but they're not really practical for anything above the Representative level.
edit: I've sometimes wondered if we should just make campaign money a finite resource that's distributed by the federal government. Not sure how that would work in practice though.
edited 21st May '17 10:41:39 AM by Kostya

edited 21st May '17 9:11:29 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar