I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence. — ZhouBoTong

I think you have it exactly backwards. The huge claim being made is that there IS a self. Tell us what it is and what evidence there is for it, and then we can tell you whether we believe in it or not. But that's either not been done, or when it has -- e.g., as some "entity" residing somewhere behind your eyes -- it can be shown to be not that. All we know -- whether on drugs or in deep meditation -- is that there is phenomena happening and changing -- both "in" our minds and "in" our bodies, as well as "outside" of "us," and that none of it is really "me." It's not an easy thing to grasp, especially growing up in the West, but it can be experienced. If you haven't experienced it yet but are truly interested in seeing it, then yes either take harder drugs or my recommendation would be to go to a meditation retreat for a week.

It maybe true that an external reality exists but how can we describe it? Once we start to describe it we rely on individual perceivers. — Andrew4Handel

I think the whole "inner/outer" or "external/internal world" debate is a mistake. In fact I started an entire thread about this in the "Notion of Subject/Object" a couple months ago. It's taken us down blind alleys and dead ends.

The very question, the problem itself (about the self or the subject or the external world), is based on a set of beliefs and assumptions about the world which have their origins in the thinking of Descartes, the Scholastics, and the Greeks. I think this is precisely the reason claims that are made about the "self" being an illusion is particularly hard to grasp to us Westerners, whereas in the East it's much easier -- due to their very different traditional ontologies.

I think that there is a fundamental problem in claiming something doesn't exist that people have direct access to.

For example pain. If you are in pain you know you are and no theorizing is going stop you being in pain. — Andrew4Handel

There is pain, yes. There are sensations. There are thoughts. There are sights and sounds. There are all kinds of phenomena in the world. To attach a "I," "me," mine," "you," etc., to it is tricky. It's fine for everyday use, but when you analyze it philosophically or scientifically, or even introspect for a while (or meditate, as in the Buddhist case) you find that it's not really defined at all. This is why it's sad to be an "illusion." It's not that you or I don't "exist," but that those very terms (when referring to individual "selves") are actually quite vague and, in the end, meaningless.

I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self."
— Xtrix

I am less convinced. Soldiers and athletes block out pain regularly. Many women cry like babies when they bump their leg on a table and yet somehow give birth without going into shock. Mental strength? No question. Some sort of "loss of self"? Possibly, I just have no reason to believe it. — ZhouBoTong

Believe what, exactly? When looking at it closely, it's obvious there's no such thing as "self." Are you your thoughts, feelings, actions? Where are "you"? Where is this "self"?

A useful, common-usage term we all use? Sure. But in the same way as speaking of the "meaning of life" or something like that. I know what you mean, but there's no way to pin it down in any naturalistic sense. Likewise for "soul," likewise for "spirit," "subject," "mind" for that matter.

If you're defining "self" within a certain theory, and giving it a technical definition I'm not aware of, then that's different. I don't see you doing so. In fact you've given no definition, and so it's hard to say whether or not we "believe" in something when we don't know what it is.

I can see some value here, but more along the lines of remaining agnostic to the possibilities, vs actually making a claim (there is no self) that would require evidence. — ZhouBoTong

What "evidence" is there that there IS a self? Well, first we have to define what we mean by "self," and then provide the supporting evidence. But none of that has been done and, in fact, when you go to do it you find it evaporates. Is your liver a part of your self? Is it your brain? Your thoughts? Your sensations? Your memory? Etc.

Like the concept of "God," people will often say similar things: "Well you can't PROVE there is no God!" I hope you see the flawed reasoning in that sense. I think you're doing something like that here.

but what we are and who we are have a long history of interpretations.
— Xtrix

And what is wrong with summarizing these interpretations with words like "I" or "self"... — ZhouBoTong

Nothing. As long as we don't take it too seriously.

What the Buddhists will say is that we become "attached" to the "I," the "self," and that this is a cause of suffering.

Perhaps another way of phrasing it...what purpose would it serve to admit there is no self...? Would we act differently? Would we know anything new? Do we gain anything? — ZhouBoTong

I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self." So we can certainly act differently, and I think it is a kind of "knowledge" in the sense of recognizing a concept that isn't what we normally think it is -- that it doesn't have a locus. I don't know about "gaining" anything per se. But, again, maybe.

Nothing wrong with referring to yourself as "me" or anything like that. As with most ordinary speech and thinking, we know what we mean by it.

True, but the same is true with God existing. God itself, one may argue, is a name for a "perspective" too.
— Xtrix

I guess it depends on how capable that god is at seeing "at all angles" and making accurate discernments/judgements. It also is contigent on if that god is good and/or doesn't take bribes and doesn't prefer physically attractive women. Lets be honest god is a man. lol. — christian2017

Yeah, I just think "god" is a word that refers to "being," that which is "bigger" or larger than "us." Interpreting "it" as a person-like entity is understandable, but almost certainly wrong. We see this instinct in every culture, but there's no reason to take it too seriously.

It's not inconsistent. What gets "reincarnated" in their view isn't a "self" or even an "object" in our Western sense of the term. What we are as "individual entities" or beings, we're part of a bigger "being" as well, which in their view is Anicca -- change. Since they notice all things change in the present moment (and always), ideas about "reincarnation" make sense. But the Buddhists don't stress this, and if they do it's not what we've come to believe it is in the West.

If there is no god (and i acknowledge that possibility) then all of history is interpreted by flawed humans and flawed perspectives very often create even more or even worse flawed perspectives. — christian2017

True, but the same is true with God existing. God itself, one may argue, is a name for a "perspective" too.

I think the idea that the self is an illusion does not make sense. The obvious first complaint is who is having this illusion? — Andrew4Handel

To ask "who is having this illusion"? is begging the question. Maybe "one" has illusions about a "self" - this doesn't mean we reject our being. It means we reject concepts like "I," "self," "subject," "experiencer," etc. - at least in terms of traditional thinking. That we are isn't really in question, but what we are and who we are have a long history of interpretations.

Looks like the Republicans are trying their best, yet again, to screw the American people. What's the answer to this crisis, in their world? What the answer is to everything -- their ONE idea: TAX CUTS!

Specifically, tax cuts for corporations.

Even in a time of crisis, they don't even pretend to be anything other than corporate slaves. It's really repugnant.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?
— Xtrix

Oh, political speculation is verboten? — fishfry

Stupidity isn't forbidden, no. Hence why you're still allowed to post things.

You seem to only know what you read in the papers, and you clearly don't read much. — fishfry

This from a guy who continues to defend a stupid, stupid statement out of embarrassment. Forgive me if I don't care.

So you've asserted, without any evidence whatsoever.
— Xtrix

So fucking what? Look it up. Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplemental. I can't sit here and teach you Medicare. It's a very complicated system. Go do your homework. — fishfry

Lol (I actually did). The response of an adolescent who hasn't a clue wha the's talking about. Fair enough, buddy. I'll spend my time tracking down stupid claims form ignorant people with zero credibility.

I wonder where I got the idea it was a waste of time to interact with you. — fishfry

Yeah, YOU'RE the one who's wondering that. lol. God you're a joke. Goodbye.

BTW:

You've made it clear you're not interested in learning anything "in detail," so why bother?
— Xtrix

Your reading comprehension issues noted. — fishfry

Or, as I've stated, I haven't sufficient interest in the topic of health care policy to drill down another level of detail. — fishfry

I stated that I don't feel like talking about it right now in this thread. — fishfry

What was that about reading comprehension?

Not having "sufficient interest in the topic" is a far cry from "knowing a lot about it, but not wanting to talk about it."

Maybe you SHOULD be excluded from adult conversations after all.

I'd let this go but I'm really curious to understand your thinking.

I agree Hillary as the nominee is unlikely. But you think even mention of it is somehow beyond the pale. But I have seen much speculation along those lines from both the right and the left side of the commentariat for months. I just don't see why you think even mentioning the idea as a speculation is somehow wrong. I mean, Hillary's been all over the place in public the past few months, and when asked about her intentions she coyly says, "I never say never."

How do you figure that's not sufficient justification for raising the question?

Please try to answer this in complete logical sentences, not "Ugh . Come on," which is not helpful. — fishfry

To quote a very stable genius: "I don't feel like talking about it on this thread."

But seriously: keep trying to save face, it's kind of hilarious. If you can't see how stupid your original comment was, despite multiple people explaining it to you, you're not willing to see it. Which I see is a typical pattern for you.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?

Of course there will be involvement with private hospitals and private insurance, to a degree.
— Xtrix

Those involvements are exactly what makes Medicare so popular; — fishfry

So you've asserted, without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm actually quite knowledgable on health care policy and economics. I stated that I don't feel like talking about it right now in this thread. — fishfry

Ohhh, I see. Got it. Fortunately for all of us, you DO feel like talking complete nonsense. Glad you find time for that, at least.

So let's recap:

All government programs = bad.
Medicare is popular.
Thus, medicare must not be a government-run program. It's the private aspects that people like.
Evidence requested? Yes. Evidence given? None. Reason? "Don't want to talk about it."

Conclusion:

Any time you spent in my presence made you less ignorant. It was time well spent. — fishfry

Lol.

The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. — Relativist

Of course. So you'll take the 1%. That's fine...I just don't happen to agree with it. I think Bernie's policies are so much better for the country, particularly on climate change, that it's worth taking that minor risk.

Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context... — creativesoul

The participant selection process and framing of the questions. Yes, very legitimate questions about polling. Gallup has plenty of information about the process, the randomness of sampling, sampling sizes, statistical analyses, etc. Remember that it is important for business and politicians to have a clear understanding on where the public is. It really matters, and thus it's important that they get it right. Turns out, they often do.

I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — creativesoul

This wasn't directed at me, but I can relate. You're not alone. The more important an issue is, the more emotional control (especially anger) we have to exercise so that our logic and ability to listen/learn isn't obstructed.

In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart? — VagabondSpectre

I do believe you're right. There's a very volatile populist trend right now, though -- on both left and right. So the government (republicans and democrats) may actually come together to fight it, because a recession causes a lot of popular uprising, and the last one is still in our memory. People will be coming for them, and they know it. So watch for mild aid packages and other half measures to keep a decent amount of people covered. The working class poor will suffer the most, as always.

Although I went too far when I claimed Bernie was unelectable, the fact is that the data suggests he's got a lesser chance than Biden. Do you agree that it's reasonable to take that into account when voting in the primary? — Relativist

Sure. I disagree with it for a number of reasons, but it's a respectable position.

On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk. — Relativist

Yes, and there's an argument to be made there. But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. Now you have to ask: How popular are the proposals? What are the odds that they're implemented, and does it matter? And how much better for the country is this set of policies over the other?

Then there's the fair argument about the 2018 midterms, where only the more "moderate" candidates won in the swing districts, and where the "progressives" (or those closer to Sanders in proposals) all lost. Thus, how would Sanders effect down-ballot races? But to me that's really just an argument for people not turning out if Bernie were the nominee, to voting third party because they're so turned off by him or his policies. I see it far more likely that it's Sanders' supporters who stay home or vote third party, unfortunately.

If someone shows up to vote for someone as progressive as Sanders, then by their argument the moderate democrats would stay home and it wouldn't effect down-ballot races at all. I think the Democratic voters are motivated enough to vote for almost anyone over Trump, so if either Biden or Sanders lose some portion, so be it. It's either gonna be a wash, or the Sanders people will stay home in higher percentage. Now the question becomes, on top of that, who do we think turns out the most NEW voters? Who taps into the biggest voting bloc in the country (the non-voters)? The Sanders camp argues that he would, and there's good reason to believe it: he does overwhelmingly well with younger voters. And they're an active bunch, even if they're not yet voting in the numbers they should vote in. They're also the future of the party and the country. What do THEY want? What excites them?

These are all questions to ask. This isn't the easiest thing to figure out, but analyzing the demographics and projections are very important. The Republican party recognizes this, in fact. That's why they try subtle (and not-so-subtle) tactics to suppress minority voters and overall voter turnout.

This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that? — Relativist

Of course, as I have from the beginning. I said from the beginning that that was a very reasonable position to take. But that was not what the narrative was when Bernie looked like he was winning the nomination, and not what you claimed either. You said you agreed that Bernie wasn't electable, which is what the DNC was pushing all along and which, as has been shown, is nonsense. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's not a trivial distinction. To say Bernie was "unelectable" implies he would lose to Trump which, when you look at the only good evidence we have, clearly isn't true. To say Biden is 1% ahead of Bernie in national polls, and voting for him because of it, is a very different position.

Florida (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there. — Relativist

Very true.

By the way, it's more helpful (I think) to look at polling averages, as they do fluctuate.

Given this, Trump leads Florida over Biden by 1.3%.

Biden leads Trump in PA by 3.8%, Michigan by 4.8%, North Carolina 3.4%, Arizona 3.8%.

They're tied in Wisconsin.

That's not bad, so far. I'd like those to be much, much higher, but at least it's competitive. Also, surprisingly, in Texas, Trump is up on average 2.6%. That's really big news for the Democrats.

Joe should focus on Pennsylvania and Michigan, especially, and then Florida. If he puts in time in AZ and NC, then I think he has a good shot of winning, given Trump's unpopularity. But you never know what happens between now and November. So far, this coronavirus response is not helping him. His base won't leave him, but independents will. And they're the ones who swung the election.

Polling can be a tool for a very specific purpose. The questions can be asked in very specific ways to a very targeted audience. The results can then be custom tailored to suit the needs of those using them as evidence to influence public narrative and/or beliefs.

That's the reality.

Prior to placing any value, any confidence, or basing any belief upon polling results, there are some questions that need to be answered.

What were the exact questions asked and in what order and/or context? How were the participants chosen? — creativesoul

Are you denying that what I wrote is true? — creativesoul

I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.

So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed.

Bernie's looking good in this debate. I don't see it changing things, but I'm glad it happened.

Yes, and please do.

You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of).

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

I wouldn't consider personal finance trivial. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not what I said.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair."

This is fine, with the exception that you need to be careful in cases where you disenfranchise one group to empower another. I'm fine with making plenty of things more fair, but we just need to talk about the specifics and how its implemented. — BitconnectCarlos

Sounds good to me. And I myself am not particularly worried about the 0.01% of the population who will be "disenfranchised."



No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

I am curious as to why you think my idea is so outlandish when Hillary's name is in the news every single day, — fishfry

It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me. — fishfry

Ugh. Come on.

Medicare is a government-run program.
— Xtrix

Medicare is a public/private partnership. — fishfry

Medicare is a government-run program. This should be simple stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Administration

Of course there will be involvement with private hospitals and private insurance, to a degree.

You've made it clear you're not interested in learning anything "in detail," so why bother?

Saying I should "do my homework" is childish -- either you have an argument based on evidence, or you don't.
— Xtrix

Or, as I've stated, I haven't sufficient interest in the topic of health care policy to drill down another level of detail. — fishfry

So you don't. You might have stated this clearly from the beginning and not waste my time.

What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. — Relativist

Yet this is the only reliable evidence we have. Do you admit this or not?

Looking at polling aggregates is important. Yes, there is variation and margins of error. But overall, polling is very predictive and accurate. What do you really understand about polling? Do you understand the process behind it? The statistics behind it? If you do, then you'll realize how important they are. In that case, why the qualifications and skepticism about certain polls and not others? Notice Trump is doing the same thing: a poll comes out that's somewhat favorable to him, he'll tout it. If not, he'll point out how inaccurate polling is, and will give specific examples (his favorite, of course, is the 2016 election).

Polling isn't the only evidence, but when it comes to elections it's the best singe piece of evidence we have.

The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads. — Relativist

I'm sure you're aware that this comparison has also been made in the media, many times. Before even getting into it, is this historical fact (and parallels) MORE important that polling data, or less? Again, I would argue FAR LESS. Why? Well look at the polling in 1972. What did the polls say. Not "what did enthusiastic, young-spirited, idealistic liberals" think and feel, but what did the data show? Did they take good polls back then? Did they have statistical tools? Turns out, they did. So what did the polls say? I'll let you look them up yourself, if you're interested in doing so. Don't take my word for it.

But assuming my claim is true about polls AND your comparison is also assumed to be accurate in that there are striking parallels (which I agree with, BTW) to McGovern's and Bernie's campaigns, what would our prediction be? We already know the outcome, of course, but that's beside the point. I would conclude that any kind of "landslide" victory would show up in polling prior to it happening -- if polling is worth anything at all, it should at least do that. Turns out, it did. Again, you can look up the numbers yourself -- this isn't controversial.

So McGovern was Bernie in 1972, with polling indicating he would lose handily to a popular incumbent.

Switch gears to 2020, where polling indicates Bernie slightly ahead of Trump, averaging 5 percentage points. Maybe 3 polls show Trump winning, by no more than 5 points, in over six months and, in fact, show only Bernie winning since late January.

Biden averages 6.4 percentage points.

Republicans are much more likely to say "the polling is biased," Bernie people will perhaps say the same thing because he's not polling as well as Biden is nationally. But they are what they are. Do we argue that every credible polling source -- Pew, Gallop, major newspapers, etc., when taken as an average, are all biased? No. It's the best information we have.

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden. — Relativist

Sorry, but this is anecdotal.

Now you want to say that the reason it's popular is because of the private aspect of it, or otherwise "people would hate it." Heads I win, tails you lose.
— Xtrix

Yes, that is exactly the case. Straight Medicare would be very unpopular. It doesn't pay enough benefits and it offers no flexibility. It's the private component that makes it work. You should do your homework on this issue. What I state is well-known fact. — fishfry

I am very skeptical about this. What is the evidence? What are the well-known facts? Saying I should "do my homework" is childish -- either you have an argument based on evidence, or you don't. If you do, then give the evidence and cite your sources, and I can check them myself. Otherwise no, you're not a credible source. I've already cited polls that show medicare is popular. Medicare is a government-run program. Case closed until further evidence is admitted, not simply your feelings on the matter and vague allusions to "common knowledge."

Socialism is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. — fishfry

You lose credibility when saying things like this.

Christianity is the most brutal, dehumanizing system ever imagined. Responsible for far more deaths.
Capitalism is the most brutal system ever imagined. Likewise, far more resulting deaths.

Better arguments could be made for just these alone. But I don't go around saying silly things like that.

If we're looking to actually help individuals our focus should tend to be on microeconomic decisions as opposed to macroeconomic ones. If you're a financial advisor and a struggling person comes into your office it makes more sense to have them write up a budget and analyze their goals than to blame NAFTA or deregulation. I'm not discounting these... but again, start with the small first and then work your way up. Do not gloss over the small and immediately resort to the big when analyzing individuals. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

Yes, of course it's more helpful to give people concrete advice for their specific (microeconomic) problems. Also, like I said before, there's no sense in me giving lectures about macroeconomics or history or class struggles to someone who simply needs a job. My efforts would be much better spent helping him look for and find a job, in that case.

you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

Oh of course it is but so is life itself. There's no "system" on earth that's fair and I don't quite know what fair would look like. Sure, I'm with you that the war on drugs is unfair. Lets scrap it. — BitconnectCarlos

Why scrap it? -- life is just unfair, and that's the way it is. No?

I think this could be an interesting point of discussion; what do you do with this fact concerning the unfairness of life itself? — BitconnectCarlos

I'll have to pull a Socrates and pick on the word "fair," in this case. You're sounding a bit like Thomas Hobbes to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I'd like to think that humans are fundamentally good, and I see a lot of evidence that suggests this. That we're sociable creatures, that we care for one another, that we wish to live good lives, etc. Of course, there's plenty of evidence that suggests the opposite, too.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair." Sure, that's true, but no less true than it's simply unfair. All that means is that we have got to currently navigate a human-created, unfair system. We should do it with strength, hard work, courage, etc. -- not whining, not using the unfairness as an excuse to be lazy and victimized, but nevertheless with a clear understanding that the game has, in fact, been rigged.

We play anyway. There's not much of a choice, in my view. Nor is there much of a choice to play it rationally and aggressively. But by keeping this unfairness in mind, and understanding it clearly, we perhaps can change the game itself from the inside or, perhaps, eventually create an entirely new game altogether.

Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy. — Relativist

I've never proposed any conspiracy theories. You attributed that to me. What the DNC has done I suppose could be considered conspiracy, but in my mind that involves a group of people plotting things out secretly. The DNC has been very honest and vocal about their opposition to Bernie, and have stated their reasons. That's really not a conspiracy.

In terms of accepting the possibility of your position, see my prior response. It's not about whether it COULD be correct -- sure it could. But the rationale behind your decision or your position is very important. If based on clear reasoning and evidence, I have no problem with it even if it turns out to be wrong. But I think in your case the evidence is being ignored for a more speculative and "instincts"-based justification.

And I think you represent, unfortunately, a large group of like-minded individuals. I think it's a really big mistake, and I think it's a result of what's essentially DNC and media propaganda, not objective reasoning. But I hope the outcome turns out to be favorable anyway, even if the reasoning is, in my judgment, faulty.

You're right about the hard data, and I admit I'm giving you my sense of things - my opinion. Nevertheless, I provided the reasoning behind my opinion. You may disagree with my analysis, but you haven't actually shown I'm wrong. — Relativist

Of course you could very well be right. So could I. But, as you know, we settled things with the available information, with evidence. We can both speculate all day, I'm sure -- but that's like two people playing a game and neither knowing the probabilities of various outcomes.

In our case, I'm not basing my opinion on what I feel or believe on this particular topic (electability), but what the data actually says. Polling is that data -- it's the best data we have. If you want to talk about polling accuracy, history, statistics, etc., then that's a different topic.

But if you do agree it's the best evidence we have thus far (at least pertaining to the question of whether Bernie is "electable" in the sense of beating Donald Trump -- of being elected President), then you clearly see that Bernie is, in fact, electable.

You may claim that it's the voters who have decided, and that's really the best evidence. This is where I disagreed. But I'm only correct if, in fact, this "electability" issue is true. Much of the polling seems to suggest that it is -- i.e., that most Democratic voters were voting for who had the "better chance of beating Trump." Now "better chance" may be different than "who's electable" -- maybe these voters see that both Bernie and Biden poll well against Trump, and are thus electable, but Biden does better. If that's the case, that's a reasonable position if the polling in fact suggests it (and some of it does, particularly in Florida -- a very key state -- and Pennsylvania, although I hope someone corrects me if this has changed). But that's not what the DNC, media pundits, editorials, and even yourself seem to be emphasizing.

You ignored my response to you, which mentioned -- and I repeat -- that the only hard data we have (this does NOT include your "feelings"-based analysis of who has the better chance) shows that Bernie beats Trump, sometimes more than Biden, sometimes less. The question was about the electability of Bernie, which is in large part what the argument of the DNC was. That's shown over and over to be nonsense. The DNC simply wants to choose their person, and that was long ago made for Biden.

Side note: the fact that Bernie even came as close as he did is a shocker, given the party he was running in didn't support him. Worth keeping in mind.

But if it's Biden, fine. Maybe he wins, maybe not. He's got as good a chance as Clinton, I suppose. Hopefully he's smarter about his campaigning, hits the swing states more, capitalizes on his likability and Obama's association, and starts appealing to younger and more progressive voters.

Bernie's policies turn more people off than does Biden's. — Relativist

Even if that's true, it's far from saying he's "unelectable." But it happens that it's precisely the opposite: most people love his policies. Even the most controversial, and the one that's garnered the most attention, Medicare for All, has a slight majority support.

Bernie has plenty of liabilities -- like black voters, moderates, etc. He's got to address that. But as I said, if they weren't being told by their own party that he's "unelectable," they would vote differently. They're being told to vote for Biden, essentially, on the grounds that Bernie is unelectable. Which was originally the point -- you said you felt the same way and saw nothing to contradict that belief. I think everyone here, including myself, has provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. Which you've ignored.

So who's really putting on blinders here?

WSJ op-ed page already using the opportunity to claim that Britain and Italy are struggling with the virus because...wait for it...government is TOO involved with healthcare!

If only we lived in a world where literally everything was privatized, in the hands of big corporations. Nothing would go wrong with those smart people in charge.

Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable."
— Xtrix
I am one of them, and I see good reasons to think it's true, and haven't seen good reasons to think otherwise. Got any? — Relativist

Yes, the ones I mentioned. Based on the only evidence we have -- not pundit speculation and "gut feelings" -- is polling, when it comes to "electability." That's the hard data. What does it say? Take a look for yourself -- I mentioned some of them: he leads Trump in a heads-up matchup, including in key swing states. Biden in many cases does as well, sometimes more sometimes less, but that's beside the point.

Bernie also has a more enthusiastic base, the younger vote (by far), and majority-supported positions. The Democratic party agree more with Bernie on his proposals. Etc.

We can discuss details as well -- the moderates, African americans, and the elderly have come out more for Biden, for example. But this would all be missing my point: the argument about "electability." There was no reason for this fear three weeks ago, there's no reason for it now.

In fact, in terms of "gut feelings" -- I would argue there's much more reason to think Biden looks far weaker against Trump, and that we're repeating 2016 once again. We'll see it on full display on Sunday's debate, too.

If Sanders is one of the best speakers around, and that makes a meaningful difference in terms of votes why hasn't Bernie run away with votes in the primaries? — Relativist

Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable." They want to beat Trump and want to put up the best chance of that, even if it's someone they don't necessarily agree with or are particularly enthusiastic about. The media and the DNC made a last-ditch effort to run with Biden's ONE victory in South Carolina, and it paid off -- to even their surprise.

So they stopped Bernie again. Good for them. All that proves is that they're sleazier than the RNC (or more effective?). Rather than get behind a "socialist", they'd prefer a milquetoast, uninspiring, cognitively declining bore.

I don't even blame the "moderate" voters or the black voters for this, because when all the experts, thought leaders, party leaders, and media pundits are saying the same thing -- it's hard to believe Sanders is the correct choice. Despite the fact that he has been and continues to do well against Trump and in key swing states in polling.

Polls show democratic voters are more in line with Sanders' policies. National polls show Sanders' ideas have majorities. He had the enthusiasm and the younger voters. He had won several states and was polling well in the others, and there was a Hail Mary that connected. That's what happened, in my view.

Much as in the context of a family, and whatever formal or informal 'rules' the family follows or sets for themselves, their children, and so on; the anarchist view would eventually simply degenerate into nihilism (e.x. a parent parenting or disciplining their child is a form of "aggression" or "force" imposed on another without their "consent"), — IvoryBlackBishop

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop saying "the anarchist view" as if you have the slightest clue as to what you're discussing. You're so off base it's embarrassing.

First, "anarchism" has to be defined. To define it in such a way as to reduce it to the level of a cartoon isn't serious scholarship, even for a public forum.
Second, to say it degenerates into "nihilism" is likewise ridiculous, even in the example you give.

An act of aggression on a child is indeed an act of power, and one that should be justified. If you slap a child's hand as their reaching for a hot stove, or yank them away from the street when traffic is coming, then both examples of use of force and power, and both can be justified. You don't simply assault children for no reason -- we'd rightfully call that senseless abuse. Same with the police, same with he army, etc.

Same with teachers giving you an "F." There should be a reason, a justification, for this action. That's anarchism's central belief, but it's a tradition that varies widely in the application of that belief -- some apply it to economics, some to capitalism specifically, some to social structures, some to government, etc.

You're simply wasting everyone's time if you can't get these concepts straight.

At least start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

The "anarchist" stance is generally just a pretentious, antisocial attitude toward government as a "whole' — IvoryBlackBishop

Says who? What is this based on? What evidence?

It's far more like what I describe.

Can you summarize it for me? — IvoryBlackBishop

I could, but it would take me a long time indeed.

While it's true that, in practice, people in postions of power and authority have abritary or delegation in how they use it (such as a Judge in a court of law, an elected offical, a company executive, etc), this view is essentially "anarchist", and doesn't bother to distinguish between different types of power, or different political, economic, or social systems. — IvoryBlackBishop

This depends on what you mean by "anarchism," but I share the view with Chomsky that a common thread running through the anarchist tradition is that power should be justified -- whether in social or political systems. I also happen to think that's a very good way to think about power. It doesn't say that the use of power in the sense even of violence is always wrong, for example, but simply that the burden of proof is on the use of power. If the power systems can't meet this burden of proof, they should be dismantled.

I also like Nietzsche's assessment of power, which you don't mention. I recommend doing so if you're interested in the subject.

The reason why I do this is because microeconomic and personal decisions (say, regarding addiction for instance) affect everyone. They do so in often a direct and concrete way. There is also way, way more consensus on personal finance. The choices are an every day thing, and everyone must deal with them. This is just how I view things. — BitconnectCarlos

It's how I view things too, Carlos. But, as you know, it's only one part of an important issue. The other part is to ask what effect the environment has on individual choices and responsibility. The environment includes: housing, income, access to healthcare, education, food, etc., and the quality of these resources, filtering systems, laws, discrimination, tax codes, judicial bias (if you're rich, it's a slap on the wrist; if you're poor [whether white or black] you get 10 years), drug polices (and others) that disproportionately effect poor and minority communities, and on and on.

These are all very real factors as well, some glaringly obvious just in the statistics alone.

I'm sure you recognize all of this. What exposes what I believe to be your faulty assumptions is the way you emphasize one side of the equation while minimizing the other side, which is at least equally as important. In my view, if you spent a little more time looking into this other side, you'll find that the game we're playing isn't equal or fair but, in fact, tilted in many ways towards certain groups.

And let me be clear: this should NOT be justification for victimization, infantilization, and helplessness. "The system made me do it!" is not a slogan I endorse. But I also acknowledge that the game is, in fact, tilted.