News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Hillary vs Bernie

Started by Eddie Teach, January 31, 2016, 05:47:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Say you're at the Iowa Democratic caucus- who do you vote for?

Sanders
31 (46.3%)
Clinton
25 (37.3%)
Littlefinger
5 (7.5%)
Sanders, but only to make it easier for GOP to win
2 (3%)
Clinton, but only to make it easier for GOP to win
0 (0%)
Write in for Biden :(
1 (1.5%)
Write in for Trump :wacko:
3 (4.5%)

Total Members Voted: 66

Norgy

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.

Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.

Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program.  She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.

The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers.  Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.

Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate.  $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? 

Go back to the original speech:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

viper37

Quote from: Norgy on March 16, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.

Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.

Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.

Trump and Sanders use the same rethoric but so far, Sanders has refrained from the promotion of violence.  Both target the "establishment", "Wall Street bankers", "the elites disconnected with the people".  Sanders was and still is a fan of Castro.  He is a fan of Corbyn (UK).

The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Norgy

Quote from: viper37 on March 16, 2016, 01:27:22 PM

The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.

People like Olof Palme and Gro Harlem Brundtland? :unsure:

derspiess

#905
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2016, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program.  She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.

The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers.  Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.

Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate.  $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? 

Go back to the original speech:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.

She might be, who knows.  But she was very misleading, if not outright dishonest about what the Australians did.  Or she's just totally misinformed on the Australian "buyback". 

Throw all the "context" at me you want, the Australian example does not match up with a voluntary buyback program.  And voluntary buyback programs are significantly different from Cash for Clunkers. At best, she did not think things through here. 

Also she seems to misunderstand what an automatic weapon is.  If you want to ban or restrict something, it helps to understand what it is you are banning/restricting.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

DGuller

It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone.  Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought:  you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious. 

I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought:  if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent.  It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.

Is there a clearly better choice?  Yes, of course.  People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.

Barrister

Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2016, 02:01:43 PM
It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone.  Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought:  you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious. 

I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought:  if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent.  It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.

Is there a clearly better choice?  Yes, of course.  People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.

:rolleyes:

There is a time and place for both options.

If you look at both realistic options and decide one is noticeably better, or at least one is noticeably worse, then you should probably pick between those two options.

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup.  But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Barrister

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

True.  I was trying to let Mihali come to that conclusion himself however. :shifty:
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

viper37

Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Viper are you drunk?
Not this time.  You can not trust socialists, that is all.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 16, 2016, 02:11:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 02:07:51 PM
But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

He appears to be 100% against both.  :hmm:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Capetan Mihali

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2016, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:15:33 AM
Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

We got 8 years of B. Clinton and it was Perot voters who swung that according to your logic, and those 8 years were as bad if not worse than the following 8 in creating the conditions for the '8 meltdown.

The Democratic Party and Al Gore failed to convince a number of people to vote for them instead of Nader.  They lost the election, not the Nader voters.  I feel like this is November 2000 all over again... 

The fact that there are only two shitty choices and you have to choose the less shitty one for your vote to count -- that's every American's fault, not just those of us who'd rather not exercise our democratic prerogative for shittiness at all.

You're talking alt-history because you're imagining things would've been different under 8 years of Gore/Lieberman -- even typing that makes me cringe -- in such a way that the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't have happened.  Exactly like imagining "what-if" the South won the Civil War. 

And like imagining that a victorious Confederacy would have carefully emancipated its slaves, there is no basis in reality for assuming that a Gore presidency would have exercised anymore control over the financial sector than the Bush presidency did.
"The internet's completely over. [...] The internet's like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you."
-- Prince, 2010. (R.I.P.)