US Politics Megathread

[spanky4ever]

as of now, you probably know that Biden is a not gonna survive after Iowa election. @fightinfrenchman

[fightinfrenchman]

Make Greenland a state

[fightinfrenchman]

as of now, you probably know that Biden is a not gonna survive after Iowa election. @fightinfrenchman

I still think he has a good shot but Warren might catch up

[spanky4ever]

as of now, you probably know that Biden is a not gonna survive after Iowa election. @fightinfrenchman

I still think he has a good shot but Warren might catch up

Biden is not IT. Warren is a good candidate, but she is not IT either. You might hide to admit, that Sanders is the one we have to rely on, if the globe is not to burn, and we asssss well

[spanky4ever]

Sanders will crush Trump in a debate. who else can take him on, the master of lies and exposed

[Amsel_]

Sanders will crush Trump in a debate. who else can take him on, the master of lies and exposed

Didn't Ted Cruz beat Sanders in that one CNN healthcare debate?

[n0el]

Sanders will crush Trump in a debate. who else can take him on, the master of lies and exposed

Didn't Ted Cruz beat Sanders in that one CNN healthcare debate?

I seem to remember it the other way around. Regardless, I think it’s safe to say that anyone but Biden should fair well against Trump on the debate stage.

[fightinfrenchman]

@n0el What does it mean to beat Trump in a debate exactly

[Goodspeed]

Good question
I actually don't think Sanders would convincingly "beat" him. I think Pete would, though, because he gets to play the religion card and is calm. The contrast would be huge.

[n0el]

@n0el What does it mean to beat Trump in a debate exactly

I didn’t say beat him. It’s about making your message without fumbling or sounding like a senile old person.

[Riotcoke]

When do people start dropping out of the race, like in the UK if they're obviously at a low percentage they drop out

[n0el]

There will be a large way once the next debate field locks. Anyone who doesn’t qualify will drop out.

[Kawapasaka]

Trump would crush Bernie in a debate. All he needs to say is "you lost to Hillary, you're a loser, you lost, etc., etc." Nobody wants to vote for a loser, policy be damned.

[fightinfrenchman]

Trump would crush Bernie in a debate. All he needs to say is "you lost to Hillary, you're a loser, you lost, etc., etc." Nobody wants to vote for a loser, policy be damned.

What does it mean to "crush" someone in a debate?

[Jam]

Trump would crush Bernie in a debate. All he needs to say is "you lost to Hillary, you're a loser, you lost, etc., etc." Nobody wants to vote for a loser, policy be damned.

What does it mean to "crush" someone in a debate?

We're gonna crush them so hard that they...nobody has ever been crushed like this before, trust me, and they say, lots of people are saying, even the Iranians are saying it-they're trying to get the nuclear but it's not gonna happen, trust me, even the Iranians are saying so. I can't think of anyone who would want us to lose this election more than The Iran, and even they're saying we're gonna crush him.

[Kawapasaka]

Trump would crush Bernie in a debate. All he needs to say is "you lost to Hillary, you're a loser, you lost, etc., etc." Nobody wants to vote for a loser, policy be damned.

What does it mean to "crush" someone in a debate?

What the other guy said.

[fightinfrenchman]

Explain what you think "winning" a debate means specifically

[Kawapasaka]

Explain what you think "winning" a debate means specifically

In this case simply making his opponent less popular by making him out as weak/ineffectual, demotivating enough potential voters. It's effective rhetoric.

Although on second thoughts I'm thinking more in terms of campaign speeches rather than an actual staged debate between the two.

[Horsemen]

People believe in illusions on both sides of the isle. The difference is in openness to change. Older people have often settled and are stable, have their future planned out within the the existing system, while for younger people the future is uncertain therefore they still have incentive to change the system to give them better chances.

What a cop-out to pretend older people are relatively more conservative because they're wiser.

Another counter point: the significant positive correlation between education level and likelihood of being progressive.

Not surprising given the proliferation of Mickey Mouse degrees and the left-wing indoctrination on those courses. Having a PhD in Gender Studies doesn’t count as an ‘education’.

There are stupid conservatives and stupid progressives, there’s nothing to suggest intelligence and education lead more to one or the other.

Wrong.
https://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26 ... ed-adults/
But you already know this I'm sure, otherwise you wouldn't have called into question the validity of education. Its funny to see your mental gymnastics to try to hang on to your bias. A normal rational line of thought would go like this. Someone who's educated is more likely to analyze a situation and come to a correct assessment than someone who's uneducated, all else being equal. However since educated people are more likely to disagree with your opinion, instead of doing what a rational person would do and try to take a step back and reassess your worldview, you've done the opposite. Since you assume you're correct and don't even consider the fact that you aren't, education must have a net negative, or be a wash, especially the things that I personally don't consider to be education like gender studies( what an absolutely moronic statement that in in of itself is, but that's a whole different can of worms)! In fact basically every study ever done on the matter has concluded that the more education one receives, the higher the chance of them being left leaning. But I'm sure you'll just dismiss that with some blah blah university is a breeding ground for leftist activity blah blah( again ignoring the circular reasoning there) and continue to sit in your close minded bubble where anything that contradicts your worldview is automatically invalid.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Socialism. The rationale is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of political theory most of the reasoning will go over a typical person's head. There's also Marx's outlook on dialectical materialism, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Hegel, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ideas, to realise that they're not just rationally compelling - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Socialism truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the logic in Marx's existential catchphrase "Religion is the opiate of the masses," which itself is a cryptic reference to Hume's philosophical epic Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Marx's genius unfolds itself on their pages. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a hammer and sickle tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

[spanky4ever]

Good question
I actually don't think Sanders would convincingly "beat" him. I think Pete would, though, because he gets to play the religion card and is calm. The contrast would be huge.

geesus, you know that your Pete has the most billionaire donations? - of them all, and still, only have 7% support in the pop in general? Does that tell you anything at all
I know Sanders does not play the religious card, and I thank him for it. If necessary, he will have all the cards he needs, in that regard.
Playing the religious card, all the time makes me sick to my stomach.

[spanky4ever]

@n0el What does it mean to beat Trump in a debate exactly

To have good arguments, and showing to everyone listening, that you understand what is going on in USA, cos clearly Trump has no clue.

[Goodspeed]

Good question
I actually don't think Sanders would convincingly "beat" him. I think Pete would, though, because he gets to play the religion card and is calm. The contrast would be huge.

geesus, you know that your Pete has the most billionaire donations? - of them all, and still, only have 7% support in the pop in general? Does that tell you anything at all

Tells me voters don't pay attention and/or don't know what's good for them.
But I guess both of those are known facts already.

[spanky4ever]

Good question
I actually don't think Sanders would convincingly "beat" him. I think Pete would, though, because he gets to play the religion card and is calm. The contrast would be huge.

geesus, you know that your Pete has the most billionaire donations? - of them all, and still, only have 7% support in the pop in general? Does that tell you anything at all

Tells me voters don't pay attention and/or don't know what's good for them.
But I guess both of those are known facts already.

What it tells me, is that billionaires think he will do nicely for them.
You can no longer say that he has little name recognition now, so I guess most ppl "know" about him, and choose not to support him

Smooth-talking and cotton arguments are seemingly not the answer in this election.

It will def not be Pete, but he had a good run, and now he should but out

[fightinfrenchman]

Bernie should drop out and endorse Warren if he actually wants to beat Biden

[spanky4ever]

Bernie should drop out and endorse Warren if he actually wants to beat Biden

Bernie being no 2, shold drop out? if he want to beat Biden?
I thought it was Trump we want so desperately to beat