While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations). — ZhouBoTong

There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too.

So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? — ZhouBoTong

So very true. It's the same with listening to people go on about climate change. Why is it that just because in their free time they take a slight interest in politics (when they get home from work and not watching "Dancing With The Stars" or the NFL), and hear some talking point from their favorite opinion columnist, talk show host, comedian, or radio commentator, that they feel entitled to spout nonsense online (and in person)?

They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. You don't hear people claiming to know anything about the latest in physics, for example. Yet if it's been "politicized" and thus included in their daily diet of news consumption/addiction, then suddenly they feel confident in their sudden expertise.

What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda.

This happens on the left as well, of course. But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," it turns politics into spectator sports, something Americans are all too comfortable with: sitting on the sofa or in a stadium, cheering on a team, and feeling like they're actually a part of any of it -- as the NFL goes makes millions of dollars off of them.

A little long winded. I digress.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

I never even hinted at such proposition. — NOS4A2

You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.

Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined. — NOS4A2

I asked specifically for your own definition. You quoted the dictionary. So who's falling into the fallacy you cite?

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.

it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore. — NOS4A2

It's interesting you say this, yet you use it in a negative sense in reference to Bernie Sanders' policies -- which aren't unlike Canada, Denmark, etc. Then you say these countries aren't socialist.

So Sanders' proposals are socialist, and socialism (although a meaningless term) "never works," you cite the dictionary and list a Wikipedia article on socialist states, including China (which has greater GDP growth than the US). So China's policies have failed?

You're just confused. Stop using "socialism," and look at the proposals on their now merits. Universal healthcare, free public college, student debt relief, doing something about climate change, etc. These aren't radical Communist ideas. Your dating yourself if you think so.

I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states — NOS4A2

Good. So now you must realize the stupidity of your original statement? Unless, of course, China, Russia and India are failed states?

The Nordic system is not socialist. — NOS4A2

Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.

What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them? — Nobeernolife

A climate denier is someone, like you, who denies that the climate is changing at a rapid rate of change and caused not by variance but by human activity, mainly from burning fossil fuels, agricultural practices and deforestation.

Someone who talks so much about "propaganda" sure can't recognize the role it's played in his own "opinions" about climate change. What a shocker.

"The climate is always changing" is the current denialist talking point. Surprised you have busted that one out yet.

Again: it's worth educating yourself on this. Try NASA, NOAA, or any college or university science department here or anywhere else in the world. I'll link the first below. Or is NASA included in this propaganda and global conspiracy?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points. — Nobeernolife

Yes, there's plenty of information on the Earth being flat too. I guess it's a wash, then. Great argument for remaining ignorant about science.

As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels. — Nobeernolife

That's not what you initially said. If that's what you meant, fine -- that's fair and it's worth discussing seriously. But it certainly didn't come off that way.

I already alluded to the fact that the US's involvement would have an impact on the rest of the world, as did others on this thread. We're currently the only civilized nation not in the Paris Accord, for example. That matters.

If we're a world leader -- as we clearly are -- and also a leader in emissions per capita and second in total, then we have a responsibility to do something. I can't speak for China, India, or other countries. I don't like what they do, obviously, but I'm an American citizen and so I write and talk especially about American environmental policies, because that's where I can have the most (and still far too little) effect.

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.
— Xtrix
If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump. — Nobeernolife

I didn't say that either. I'm arguing because of your stupid statements, which you continue to make, about comments I never made.

Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all.

Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate. — Nobeernolife

Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll:

It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant.

You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it.

Or continue making embarrassing claims. Your call.

Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years. — ZhouBoTong

Excellent point. I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use. — NOS4A2

True, and yet you say:

One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.

It’s a common argument to pretend welfare states are socialist, and to pretend tax-payer funded services are the same. — NOS4A2

Common, yes. Correct? Sure -- but only using your definition of socialism.

I'll be less nuanced: your claim that socialism has "always failed" is flat wrong, on any measure. Either acknowledge that or the only response you deserve is: "OK, boomer."

But it was Bismarck, a conservative anti-socialist, who instituted the first social health insurance system. And he arguably did it in spite of socialism. As for post offices, they became tax-funded under Charles 1st, long before socialism was a fart in someone’s mind. Taxes have been a part of human life since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

To argue Bismark was socialist or not is completely irrelevant, considering you haven't provided a definition of "socialism" and have, in fact, made sweeping, ridiculous claims about it -- which already reveals your indoctrination and poor sense of history.

Speaking of poor sense of history: the "Post Office" was not created by Charles 1st. If you're referring to England's Royal Mail, which is far different in every aspect to the USPS, then you mean Henry VIII. Also, it wasn't "tax-funded" under Charles 1st. Far from it.

I know it's usually pretty easy to get away with ignorant statements in your own circle, but try to be more careful in this forum, OK?

I don’t doubt Bernie’s sense of justice, but being against wars and bigotry is easy. What I worry about is how he plans to implement his policies and the costs. — NOS4A2

Yes, you and millions of others. That's why it's worth putting in the effort to educate yourself about it, which you refuse to do.

HOW DOES BERNIE PAY FOR HIS PROPOSALS?

Common question. Here's the answer, in detail:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

Is his ideology too extreme? Bernie has a good answer to that which was recently asked at a Town Hall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmlzB7AIWM

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. — fishfry

What wealth? You mean the wealth of the 1%? Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.

I would grow out of this fear of "socialism" and try learning something about what Bernie's proposals really are and whether they make sense.

I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump.
— Xtrix

Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything? — fishfry

Given the context, it was very easy to see that I don't like either, but was demonstrating how "low" I would go just to get Trump out of office. How is that hard to understand?

As for "neoliberal consensus"...do you even know what that is? Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism. I assume you're just confused, though, because the word "liberal" is in it.

I stand with Trump, warts and all. — fishfry

Great choice.

And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country. — fishfry

Yeah, this coming from someone who voted for and continues to stand by Donald Trump?

Excuse me as I laugh myself out of this dialogue.

What Xtrix is saying is blatantly false. Trump is not responsible for climate change. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate. — frank

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.

You really have some reading comprehension problems, don't you Frank?

Try to keep up, buddy.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.
— Xtrix

No, it is not. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it is.

US policy does not determine the world climate. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it does, and to a very large degree. Only China currently emits more CO2, for example.

If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true... — Nobeernolife

It's not "wild-eyed" claims, it's climatology. It's the entire scientific community. The claim is not that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause, either. Deforestation plays a significant role as well, among others.

Given how easy it is to educate yourself on this, your ignorance about it is striking -- yet not terribly surprising.

You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference. — Nobeernolife

It absolutely would.

The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?

To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania. — Nobeernolife

The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant.

But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous.

No he hasn’t. He’s an avowed socialist. One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

Such a common statement -- and essentially meaningless. So Scandinavian countries have failed? Of course not. But if you define socialism as policies that fail, then you get your answer in one step. No need to check history -- which you haven't done anyway. Or even the current state of affairs, for that matter.

As a matter of fact, tell the United States socialism has failed -- also a socialist country, just mainly for the rich. Social security, medicare, medicaid, the Post Office, the VA -- all failed socialist programs.

Also, labeling oneself a socialist has nothing to do with being on the right side of history, which Bernie has indeed been. Simplemindedly wiping out what he's done -- like being against the Iraq War, to name one thing -- because he uses the label "Democratic Socialist" is just that, simpleminded. And embarrassing to read.

There are certain pieces of legislation that have led to the current wealth gap and all of the problems most everyone agrees on.

Guess who fought hard against them at the time, sometimes being the only nay?

That is the kind of person needed. — creativesoul

Damn right.

A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else.
— NOS4A2

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day... — Artemis

Or on reality.

Very glad to hear it. I agree -- there really doesn't seem to be an alternative. I didn't like Clinton at all, but I voted for her. People who don't like Bernie can at least do that.

All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? — NOS4A2

Well he's been consistently on the right side of history for 40 years, fighting for working people.

True, it's not as glamorous as inheriting millions of dollars, bankrupting multiple businesses, and becoming a reality TV star. But not everyone can be a very stable genius with the best words.

He's been mixed with BLM, The young turks, Alexandra ocasio-cortez and other far left-wing, ridiculous people/organisations. — Judaka

I don't consider any of those ridiculous.

Throwing around the term of "democratic socialism" doesn't really help either. — Judaka

Yeah yeah, that's been said a million times. Anyone who already believes it's a negative will continue believing it, and would label him or anyone else a socialist anyway. So it really doesn't matter. Those who are curious may learn something about a political philosophy that they didn't think existed, as it's been wrapped up in propaganda for decades.

But the president sets the agenda for their entire party, so having a president like Bernie being in charge is a useful first step toward change in the right direction. — Pfhorrest

Exactly -- assuming the democrats don't take the Senate. Then again, even if they DO it may still be hard to pass anything, given the moderate vote.

That's a very important point. I've been trying to make this point as well. It bears repeating over and over again. In many ways, he's already won - in this respect.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump. — Relativist

That's a fair point. If Bernie were unelectable, my own opinion is that I would put up someone who could beat Trump instead, if it were guaranteed. I'm not 100% on that, however. There's arguments that can be made.

But the fact is, Sanders looks pretty good in a match-up against Trump. It's true that Biden was polling better in some key states, but he was polling better nationally too not long ago and has taken a huge dive. A lot of that was simple name recognition and association with Obama.

Since we don't have a magic ball, and since the only evidence we have looks good -- there's simply no reason not to nominate the best candidate. Especially if you add to the mix the chance that NOT nominating him could be a more likely disaster for the Democrats.

this is the only option left. It's the one that hasn't been tried.
— Xtrix
Do you honestly think Sanders will be able to fulfill his promises, or is that beside the point - i.e. you just want someone with the right set of concerns? — Relativist

It will be an uphill battle without the Senate and state legislators. The establishment media will probably continue to attack on all fronts, etc. So no, I don't think every aspect of the agenda will be implemented. And that's too bad, as it would be good for the country right now.

So you're right, it is beside the point to a degree. But on the other hand, there's plenty he WILL be able to achieve with just executive orders alone. He'll have the pulpit to discuss things with the American public, it'll create much-needed debate over policies that matter, etc.

There's simply no alternative at this point. Trump isn't even a consideration for any rational human being.

And once again for the 5th time, i agree with you that an absolute free market has never existed. You would really like to twist that notion wouldn't you. — christian2017

I never said "absolute." Not once. So who's twisting things?

If you want to argue a relativity of freedom of the markets, located on some technical notion of "spectrum," you're welcome to. But that's completely irrelevant.

The fact remains our economy is a mixed one, with massive state intervention on all levels. Again, this is a fact.

It's on a spectrum too. As are you, apparently.

If you are saying that the DNC won't be able to screw him because it would be too obvious, I respectfully stand by my cynicism. But I am definitely impressed by the post-Nevada vibe in the country. Latinos and African-Americans came out for Bernie Sanders, a 68 year old Jewish guy from a virtually all-white state. It's something to behold. It's what this country's all about. — fishfry

Needless to say I agree, except with the cynicism. I'm more optimistic in that case...or maybe more "hopeful." Time will tell.

That's right: As I call her, She Who Must Not Be Indicted: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dick Morris thinks that this is exactly the plan. So if I'm cynical about the lengths the Dem establishment will go to in order to stop Bernie ... I'm not alone. — fishfry

Now here I really disagree. This is wild speculation and I see no evidence for it. It's true that Bloomberg is throwing a lot of money around, but that it's part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton? Come on.

I will say this is great entertainment. Suddenly there's excitement on the Dem side. Liz destroying Bloomie so that Bernie can surge. Could that be part of a plan too? Maybe she's hoping to be his Veep. It would be a great ticket. Not one I'd vote for, but it would be a hell of an interesting election. — fishfry

Not one you'd vote for? Given the alternative and the importance of this election? That's mind boggling. I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump. One believes in climate change, the other doesn't. That's enough of a reason right there.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.
— Xtrix

I am looking, and I do not understand how his "position on climate change" the "policies enacted under his administration" are an "existential threat". Can you explain? — Nobeernolife

Yes. Climate change is an existential risk to the human species. The Trump administration has appointed people with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry to head the EPA, rolled back (or is trying to roll back) regulations on carbon emission standards, including methane. Trump has himself claimed climate change is a "hoax" from the Chinese and has repeatedly stated he wants to bring back coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. He's approved pipelines, weakened environmental reviews, and pulled out of the Paris Accord (making us the only country not in it). I could go on. There's plenty of documentation of this if you're interested -- no need to take my word for it. Trump isn't trying to hide it, because he believes there isn't even a problem to begin with.

So here we have an existential threat that's being exacerbated by the policies and ignorance of this administration. Thus, the administration on this issue alone is a clear existential threat to the country and the world.

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.

Take a look at his position on climate change and the policies enacted under his administration. How his administration isn't a unique existential threat for this alone, I really don't understand.

Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. — christian2017

There it is again, the magic word: spectrum. Brilliant. How complex you are.

Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors. — christian2017

What a bunch of bullshit. Why is it always the most simpleminded people who attack others for being simple?

You're the only one sounding like a witch doctor here. If you want to bore us with an explanation of what the hell you mean by "spectrum" and how this applies to free markets, go ahead. Otherwise you're comments are irrelevant.

So I'll repeat, again: free markets don't exist, nor have they ever existed. Interjecting engineering gibberish, without any explanation or elaboration, just shows who the "witch doctor" is.

Say something relevant or peddle your busllhit somewhere else.

Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect). — christian2017

And, once again, you miss the point. I'll make it as concrete as I can: the very idea of a free market is nonsense. It hasn't happened, it won't happen, it won't come close to happening, we shouldn't be trying to make it happen in any way. It's a fantasy. It's not on a spectrum, it's not approaching a "threshold," or whatever other vague nonsense you want to use. We should abandon any talk about it because it is, and always has been, complete nonsense. Useful nonsense, yes -- keeping people confused with this concept keeps the status quo, which is a state-capitalist system favoring concentrations of power.

If I thought Sanders could win, then I would be really hopeful. But unfortunately, I think it's going to be a replay of Johnson vs Corbyn, or Nixon vs McGovern. — Wayfarer

There are many rational people, like you, in exactly this camp. They like Bernie, or at least agree more with him than other candidates, or at the very least would prefer him over Trump -- but don't think he can win. That's OK, for now.

Bernie's grassroots support will carry him, and he will therefore continue to build steam. When that happens, and he gets the nomination, and people like yourself see the passionate base of support for him, I think you'll change your mind. Unlike, say, with Clinton, who did not have a large base of enthusiastic, grassroots support. She was a boring, mediocre, establishment centrist. I imagine people like you either held their nose and voted for her anyway because the Republicans put up the likes of Trump, or else stayed home. I just don't see that happening with a Sanders nomination.

The question you ask is, what is the evidence that I think makes the DNC screwing Bernie the most likely outcome. Well, the same people did the same thing to him in 2016. And they changed the rules to let Bloomie in the debate, while Tulsi, who has grassroots support, remains shut out. — fishfry

That's fair, but all of that is minor compared to '16. Sanders was a relatively unknown candidate at the beginning, came out of nowhere, and so they didn't quite know how to handle him. They thought they could just sweep him aside without much backlash. They were obviously wrong.

It's four years later and almost everyone knows what happened. You have Trump tweeting about it at this point. And Sanders is now the clear frontrunner, so there's no excuse of "Well Hillary won fair and square, the so-called Revolution didn't show up!" and so forth. It's very different -- this time, the DNC is aware that everyone is watching closely and will be livid if there are any shenanigans. The media is slightly better at covering it as well this time around, as they can't ignore Sanders' numbers. They aren't stupid, they must see this.

You could be right, in the end. But I both think and hope that you're wrong.

Perhaps there's a learning disability involved here.

Let me be the mean one and tell you for your own good: your entire narrative, which you continue to try to fit all evidence to the contrary neatly into, is wrong. It's stupid. It's obsolete.

Grow up.

Bloomberg is going to be nominated no matter who wins the most votes. — frank

Not a chance.

Go Google a little more and find a more thoughtful opinion you can tout as your own.

Interesting. Now just wait until Frank finds the more thoughtful answer.

AP is already projecting Sanders wins Nevada. NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc., are all following suit now. As far as I see only 4% is reporting, but I guess they know what they're doing?

Looks like Bernie is winning big based on the little that's accounted for. I guess we're all in for another week of op-eds saying that same exact thing as last week: how he's the worst one to go against Trump and how none of his plans will happen.

And the voters will continue to steamroll over these pathetic, professional "opinion-givers."

Where will they go?! Where??!

Consult Google to pick out the true and final answer -- i.e., the one you like.