Discussion in 'Politics' started by 6-eyed shaman, Apr 1, 2019.
No comment on Okies list?
On the issue of the thread, I still think Biden has what it takes. So trying to sink him over shit we've seen him do for decades only makes his accusers seem suspect. It didn't work on Kavanaugh beyond slowing things down (which could be accomplished so many other ways). What might play well for him is reviving his position on border control.
In other words, pull more to the center and try to appeal to a wider base. While the rest of the democrats waste their time on hard left "projects" and wish lists.
From me? No, it's a waste of time. Quoting the press these days is a fool's errand. There's just too much there to NOT trust. I'd rather hear the opinions of hippies than those of programmed media cogs.
Waste of time? I don't think Okie's a member of the press. Pretty slick answer. The public record on trump and criminal family is quite well known.
Biden's just more of the same, though. A Stanford study showed that we already live in an oligarchy. And I guess it's not that bad... Still, it seems like something we should be trying to correct. Not linger in the darkness with Biden. It just blows my mind when I think of what we could have with Warren or Sanders that we're not going to have it. It's such a waste.
Too easy dude. Too easy
What study is that? Are you thinking maybe of the study by Professor Gilens of Princeton and Professor Page of Northwestern https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens."
That study concluded that "ordinary citizens get what they want from government only when they happen to agree with elites or interest groups that are already calling the shots." But that conclusion may be overstated. Political scientist have criticized the study for flaws in design and methodology, and in its basic assumptions.
Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
The study looks at data on polling data for1,799 policy measures in which disagreement and found disagreement among socioeconomic groups. The rich. poor and middle class agreed on over 80% of those, but on those on which they disagreed, the rich got their way on 38.7% , compared with 37.5% for the middle class and 18.6% for the poor. The difference between the rich and the middle class is not statistically significant, and Bashir notes that the Gilmer and Page model explains only 7.4% of the common variance in policy outcomes. The cutoff for the "rich" is the 90th centile--i.e., over $190,000. If they had chosen the 1%, the findings might have been more dramatic and perhaps more meaningful. The underlying assumption of the study seems to be that democracy consists of the majority of the people getting their way on policy issues, which must have set the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. They deliberately set things up to avoid that sort of system--all the business about separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, checks and balances, a non-elected judiciary, etc., intended to make sure that didn't necessarily happen. The John Birch Society was right; this country is a republic, not a democracy--or more accurately, it's a "representative" democracy with institutional checks and balances, not a direct democracy. The people are to have a voice, mainly through the House of Representatives. But the general idea is that they elect representatives to make decisions after deliberation, not make them themselves. Democracy meant mob rule to the Framers, but became popular afterwards, leading to concessions to democracy, like popular election of the Senate. Still, democracy needs to be thought of in relative terms. The U.S. is still one of the more democratic countries of the world, but like the others has oligarchical features. Communist countries are run by party apparachiki. Capitalist countries tend to be run by private corporate interests and elites. According to Roberto Michels' "iron law of oligarchy", oligarchy is the inevitable outcome of any organization. Political scientist Robert Dahl characterizes the U.S. political system as a "polyarchy", government by the many, measured according to eight criteria. ( A Preface to Democratic Theory, p. 84)
I don't think Biden is necessarily lingering in the darkness, just because he has more experience in government than the other candidates. He seems like a nice, affable guy who has a long record of support for the working man and civil rights and liberties. Nor do I think that just because Bernie is a millionaire, we should assume he won't help bring about socialism in our lifetime, if that's what we want. Whichever of them can beat Trump is the candidate for me, because on policy and character issues, they're both leagues ahead of Trump. As Professor Gilens, the lead author of the study I think you're referring to, concluded in an earlier study: “American democracy is imperfect—so much so that its claim to that title is suspect. But our democracy was even more imperfect in earlier eras, lending some hope that, through their hard work, Americans’ attempts to build a more perfect union might not be in vain.”
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
Yes indeed, Biden is 100% establishment and has the time in service to be far more viable than Warren, Sanders and Beto combined. Since democrats have no problem putting a rookie in the top seat, I think it would be very interesting to see if Cortez could unseat Trump. But I think we're seeing that actual democrat voters want more security this time. When they wheeled out that fossil, McCain, to face Obama, I was certain the GOP had been bought off or had just lost its will to win after 8 years of GW.
Sure, the "making history" aspect of democrat life will be set aside so another "old white man" can take the US throne. A win is a win. And democrats need a win, so gambling on new talent is probably not seen as practical. Grousing about the candidates age and race (and fondling) is a step backward into divisive uselessness.
Like it or not, Trump has a lot of voters. Partly because he's playing the game differently from the previous towel tossing republicans. And partly because he's singing their tune about issues that affect a lot of Americans. Although, I have to admit, I really do hope a republican challenges Trump. It will turn him into a coin toss instantly. And the odds will haunt him back and forth across 50% for the duration. He will not be able to play it like he did the first time, that ship has sailed (and sunk).
If every democrat possible doesn't pull for Biden, Trump will win again.
Yes, that's the one. See post 207 supra. For critiques, see same or Remember that study saying America is an oligarchy? 3 rebuttals say it's wrong.
So sad it has to be such a limited and pragmatic choice. Nasty.
Like I said do whatever you want to do
It would appear as of now I can log in. If you want to change that go for. My guess is that you will not be able to since I have broken no rules.
I'm not going to change what I say to you. You will be challenged or I will be banned up to you and other mods.
I think the US has morphed into a governmental system that can't be accurately defined using texts from over a century ago. Like the people of America, a smattering of all of the people in the world basically, our government is not like any single type. Anywhere else in the world. And it's changing by the day.
The current 2-party system is probably the greatest driver for this. A nation this size should have a dozen parties that form coalitions. Instead, we have the opposite, 2 parties that drive division as a matter of course and strategy.
This is another reason you won't see me side entirely with either.
Oh give it a rest already, you know very well that this is not acceptable behavior. Why engage in this taunting nonsense?
I suggest you review the guidelines as well as Skip's 2005 letter on moderation (https://www.hipforums.com/forum/threads/about-our-bans.107093/ ).
"8. All of this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Free Speech on this site. It has to do with enforcing our guidelines, and allowing us to do our job unhindered, keeping this site free from trolls, flamers and personal attacks."
There's a reason Hip Forums isn't the fucking wild west and isn't being used/abused by the press.
So please, stick to the discussion on the subject matter of the thread and leave the personal shit out of it.
See all this talk shows I am right.
I'm not doing anything wrong. If your feelings are hurt tough shit. Ban me or move on.
I've only banned 3 members in more than 10 years, I take it a tad more seriously than you. I see it as a last resort when reason fails. If you're banned, it won't be me. I have only suggested that if you keep up with the personal bullshit, it will happen.
Whatever you need to tell yourself. I don't care either way. Changes are I am not going anywhere but if Skip of whoever disagrees it will show I did not belong here anyway.
It doesnt have to be, i'm voting for the candidate who best represents my interests. I hope everyone does
Bernie is the front runner, so the same, that unless every Democrat votes for Bernie, could be easily said. You people want it all your own way, though. It has to be whoever you like. Which really ticks me off, and is the biggest reason I would never vote for Biden. I can't stand that kind of condescending attitude. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for four more years of Trump.
Separate names with a comma.