Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I guess this is in the eye of the beholder, but if you take education as an example, I think there is a significant difference between what we have today and what it'd look like if there were no private schools and every single aspect of the educational experience were filtered through the federal government.
Democratic Socialism is a made up term to fool the rubes. I've posted this ad nauseum numerous times.
What term should I use if I want an expanded social safety net along the lines of what they have in most of Western Europe?
I know lots of people are worked up about this stuff, but my own personal perspective as someone who supported both Obama in '08 and Hillary in '16 is that both Hillary and Sanders did what they needed to do once the primary was over, and I have no complaints whatsoever.
That article doesn’t confirm anything. When it mentions the 39 stops for example, it says “by his campaign’s count”.
Even our own buddy @NCCommish got drawn into that silliness. We can’t have that type of thing happen again.
OK, I take back what I said.
The will of the voters in the democratic primaries in 2016 was overwhelmingly for Hillary. Especially if you carve out the caucuses as being something other than "elections" where the more enthusiastic Bernie followers were able to do well for Bernie.
You should probably take your own advice. You're the one falling for the lie, not me.
How many Clinton supporters voted for McCain? Its the same bull####, the only difference being that Obama didn't lose but Hillary did. The actions of the candidates and their supporters mirror each other quite a bit.
So 39 stops is BS because it's “by his campaign’s count” but Hillary's view that her "support of Obama was much stronger" is gospel?
Rubes like all the Western Europeans who have lived in such systems (Ok, “social democracies” if we want to be precise) for decades?
Doesn’t it feel like deja vu all over again?
Democratic socialism and socialism both call for public ownership of the means of production.
What the country needs is Donald Trump as a 1-term president. IMO Biden, as flawed as he is, is more likely to win an election against Trump than Pete, Sanders or Warren. I am hoping that Klobuchar can somehow make a run or Bloomberg steps in and wins the nomination but if not then Biden is our best hope.
This is a bit silly. Like writing a long post about someone misusing the term “begs the question” People routinely use the term Democratic Socialism to describe Western European social democracies. Just as they often use the term “begs the question” to mean “raises the question.” In both cases, they are misusing the phrase, but we know exactly what they are talking about.
Two dimensional thinking would have the spread on the political spectrum from Hillary to McCain seems much shorter than the spread from Sanders to Trump. With Hillary always between occupying a spot somewhere between Sanders and Trump. But I think that we should have discovered by now that the political world isn't that simple. That depending on what is important to a voter Sanders and Trump could very well be closer together than either would be to Hillary.
I was being semi-facetious. Here's a gallup poll conducted back in 2008 indicating that as many as 28% of Hillary voters would jump to McCain if Obama was the nom vs 19% the other way. I don't know if Tim's 15%-20% is actually based on anything, but my point is that this is not atypical and certainly not something that Hillary, her proxies nor her supporters should be wringing their hands about.
It isn't silly. This wasn't exactly a common discussion until Sanders came around and it blew up even more when AOC came around. People are trying to morph the definitions in an effort to thwart criticism of Sanders and AOC.
I don't recall Sanders demanding collective ownership of the means of production. Can you link to his recent (lets say last 20-30 years) statements to that effect?
What’s baloney is claiming he favors seizing the means of production when we have literally decades of footage of him praising the Nordic model, which just happens to match his actual policy platform.
Am I to assume then that you reject Bernie referring to himself as any type of socialist as well as reject the label when applied to the proposals of Bernie, Liz, AOC etc?
I no longer think it's going to be Biden. I've thought so all along, but he's not getting it done. Look for Klobuchar to have a great night tomorrow night. I'm thinking her or Bloomberg.
in 2016 Bernie had 60% of the New Hampshire vote. Tomorrow, he'll have 30% if he's lucky.
If I were to remove my personal preferences and place a bet it would be a Bloomberg/Amy ticket after a split convention
LOL at Tim's 15-20%, being 12%. Blame it on the Bernie Bros.
If I bet on politics I would take that bet in a heartbeat. There will be a person of color on that ticket. I'm guessing Abrams, but it will be SOMEBODY of color.
I was quoting somebody else. Personally I never blamed Bernie supporters for the loss. That's on Hillary (and credit to Trump for beating her.)
I think you are right if the Presidential nominee gets to choose his or her running mate. But @KiddLattimer specified that the ticket would be from a "split convention." In that scenario, the nominee might have to team up with one of the other candidates with a bunch of delegates just to get the nomination in the first place.
Fair point. I think it will 100% be a woman (assuming the candidate is not Warren), but having a person of color would definitely be preferable... Amy might be help in the midwest more than an Abrams or someone would help with people of color. Would be an interesting decision... VP choices are a fascinating topic
I see.
More often than not, they either help a little, or make no difference at all.
The ones that voted for Trump. They absolutely were. But I DON'T blame them for the loss.
I agree with the others but it probably would have made a big difference if HRC reached left instead of right.
Bernie would have won it for her for sure but I dont blame her for not choosing him specifically, there were clearly a lot of hurt feelings.
Do you know what arsonists do? If you don't get the implication that by calling them that means they burned the ship down then I don't know what to tell you.
Not weighing into the "socialism" semantic debate, but one of my biggest pet peeves is people who complain about "I could care less". Hey, schmedrick, you're not actually confused when you hear that, because there is literally only one meaning to that phrase, and everyone knows it. You're just being super-pedantic in order to try to show off your supposed intelligence.
Pretty sure there was some data at the time that showed she was a net negative of a couple points. But people who say she cost McCain the race, or that he would have won with Lieberman, are dreaming. There was no way Republicans were winning that election.
Objective study to see which democratic loser is a better supporter. 
