And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Yes, his internet access is not merely the equivalent, but superior to JBS's and my being here when Obama was campaigning.... 

He is actually half correct about Obama, since in foreign policy O campaigned as a moderate leftist but kept most of the centrist policies the Left hates.

[Todd]

In the age of internet, information is not limited to certain geographical location.

That's not true; that's a platitude.  There are literally millions/billions/trillions of pages (no one actually knows) of documentation that have not been digitized and are not available online.  It exists at all governmental levels, and in private entities.  It is not at all uncommon for information to be withheld from the internet.

Beyond that, as your posts and the sources you cite show, not all information available online is of equal value.  You rely on shit sources, and your writing reflects that.

I think average Europeans know more than average Americans.

It would be dandy if you could provide some verifiable evidence supporting this assertion. 

You can believe corporate media if you want, but you are a fool if you do.

This has become a religious belief for you. 

[71 dB]

That's not true; that's a platitude.  There are literally millions/billions/trillions of pages (no one actually knows) of documentation that have not been digitized and are not available online.  It exists at all governmental levels, and in private entities.  It is not at all uncommon for information to be withheld from the internet.

Are you saying you have access to these millions/billions/trillions of non-digitized pages? If not then you have the same internet I have. What if John Iadarola of TYT reads some of these pages and speaks about them on TYT video I watch on Youtube? What if Bernie Sanders has used these documents while "writing the damn healthcare bill"? Sure, there are tons of classified information that is kept from the public, but why should you have any more access to that information than I do?

Beyond that, as your posts and the sources you cite show, not all information available online is of equal value.  You rely on shit sources, and your writing reflects that.

My sources are good and your silly opinions don't change that. Your shitty corporate sources thought Klobuchar and other corporate hacks would have a change. My good sources laughed at that and how is Klobuchar doing? Polling at 1 %. Only Biden is doing well of the corporate hacks. That's weak "default" support from older people who don't follow politics intensively and support Biden because he is a familiar face/name and former VP of the Obama years which look golden in the Trump era. However, in time many of these people will realize Biden is a bad candidate suffering not only from mental decline but also from political agenda that doesn't really offer anything to regular people. "Nothing will chance" message resonates only for those who have it good right now, the top 5 % or so. So, Biden will come down and then we see who gets his supporters.

BIt would be dandy if you could provide some verifiable evidence supporting this assertion. 

Europeans wouldn't have elected Trump. Not even close.

[JBS]

You're mistaking the Democratic Party for the general electorate. Winning the first but not the second means Trump gets re-elected. A real progressive won't win the general precisely because they are a real progressive. When the Young Turks tell you otherwise, they aren't being accurate.
Klochubar is at one percent not because she's a centrist but because no one outside her hime state knows who she is.

[Todd]

Are you saying you have access to these millions/billions/trillions of non-digitized pages?

No, of course not, and that's not what I claimed.  I have read internal, local political documents that purposely were not placed online, and every day I work with documents that would be illegal to put online.  The clear, simple point is that not everything is available online.

My sources are good

No, they are not.

Your shitty corporate sources thought Klobuchar and other corporate hacks would have a change.

You'd have to point me to sources that stated Ms Klobuchar had a good chance.  The corporate sources I rely on always characterized her as a long shot, and most questioned her personality and electability.  This represents a case where you, being a gullible and ignorant non-American, were bamboozled by your shit sources.

Europeans wouldn't have elected Trump. Not even close.

So no, you are not capable of providing verifiable evidence for your prior assertion. 

In any event, various Yurpeans have elected, directly or indirectly, in the recent past (as in immediate past or not too many years ago) Viktor Orbán, Sebastian Kurz, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Silvio Berlusconi, and Nicolas Sarkozy.  I know there are others, but I can't be bothered to even use Google to look up irrelevant Yurpean leaders.  Oh, and Yurpeans still have a shit-ton of royalty.  So the headline evidence conclusively refutes your nonsense.

[Madiel]

If you are a right-winger, the lefties attack you online
If you are a lefty, the right-wingers attack you online
If you are ignorant, smart people attack you online
If you are smart, ignorant people attack you online
No matter who or what you are, someone will attack you online

Don't want to be attacked? Just get offline... 

I'm a lefty, you're a lefty. How does THAT fit in with your attempts to box everyone?

[Madiel]

It suck to be called ignorant. I follow politics HOURS daily!!! IT MUST GIVE KNOWLEDGE!!

It must give information. It might give knowledge. The more important question is whether it gives wisdom.

[greg]

See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.

Exactly what I've noticed, especially with regards to "progressivism" in general.

Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.

That's completely the wrong approach to things in general.
Basic psychological explanation, since that may be your weak point.

When you want something to go a certain way (regarding people especially), you do only two things: 1) apply a little bit of force slowly and gradually, or 2) apply enough force to kill.

When you apply force and do not kill, you ALWAYS create a pushback and resentment. Even if you are morally "right," you will be resented for being an asshole and people will magnifying the downsides to your ideas (yes, there's downsides to literally everything).

The correct approach (which yes, unfortunately requires patience):

The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

[71 dB]

You're mistaking the Democratic Party for the general electorate. Winning the first but not the second means Trump gets re-elected. A real progressive won't win the general precisely because they are a real progressive. When the Young Turks tell you otherwise, they aren't being accurate.
Klochubar is at one percent not because she's a centrist but because no one outside her hime state knows who she is.

Do you really think TYT lies? Sure, they have their bias and covers things from their perspective, but they still try to tell it how it is. Corporate media does that and smears things. TYT tells it how it is and admits when they predicted wrong, something that happens to anyone. Google yourself some polls of Bernie vs Trump and see. All the top three Warren, Biden and Bernie are +6 to +10 percentage points over Trump at the moment, althou I think Biden would be in bigger trouble against Trump than people think, but that's what the polls tell. Further analyse tells Bernie is strong in the important rust belt and that's why the left says Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump in the general. Winning the Democratic Party nomination is much harder for Bernie than beating Trump and that's what Bernie supporters are doing at the moment, trying to convince people that Bernie is the best candidate by far.

Sure, Klobuchar isn't well known, but so wasn't Andrew Yang who is polling at 8 % I believe, because Andrew Yang has actually a vision for the country unlike Klobuchar. Yang is for UBI, whereas Klobuchar is for nothing if you don't count "change nothing that could hurt my filthy rich donors." Biden has reserved most of those votes. Corporate media didn't say in the beginning Klobuchar has no change. The lefty Youtubers said and laughed at Klobuchar ever since she announced. Corporate media likes candidates like Klobuchar who they know won't rock the boat of oligarchy so they covered her favorably while pushing a narrative that "crazy" Bernie is a has-been with no change. Well, Bernie isn't polling 1 %, Klobuchar is.

[71 dB]

Exactly what I've noticed, especially with regards to "progressivism" in general.


That's completely the wrong approach to things in general.
Basic psychological explanation, since that may be your weak point.

When you want something to go a certain way (regarding people especially), you do only two things: 1) apply a little bit of force slowly and gradually, or 2) apply enough force to kill.

When you apply force and do not kill, you ALWAYS create a pushback and resentment. Even if you are morally "right," you will be resented for being an asshole and people will magnifying the downsides to your ideas (yes, there's downsides to literally everything).

The correct approach (which yes, unfortunately requires patience):

Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years. American's have waited improvements for decades and it isn't working. When Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right. So, while your philosophy works in many areas of life, the US has come to a point where more radical solutions are needed.

[Madiel]

Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years.

In that case you should tell medical science it has to find the cure for everything now.

Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Nope, you won't accept incremental change because it won't save EVERYBODY. Well guess what? Incremental change is how the science progresses, never mind the politics.  A few decades ago HIV infection was completely untreatable. Then there were treatments that could prolong patient's lives, and you would have looked down your nose at those treatments and said "it's not a cure".

We still don't HAVE a cure. What we have are treatments good enough to mean that people who keep taking their pills don't get sick and don't have a detectable viral load. But they have to keep taking pills their entire lives.

When Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right.

That last sentence is so utterly absurd as to barely dignify a response. Medicare for all could be repealed in exactly the same way any other healthcare package could be. You clearly have no understanding of human rights.

Maybe you should hold off posting long-distance and rejoin the conversation when you've arrived back in the real world.

[Todd]

Hunter Biden stepping down from Chinese firm, vows no foreign work if father wins in 2020

[drogulus]

     

     Ordinary Americans can be herded into strict conformation with ideological categories. They don't always do it to themselves. Pundits want people to observe distinctions that flatter the punditry, while many Americans don't even know what that means, or if they do, care.

     

[71 dB]

In that case you should tell medical science it has to find the cure for everything now.

What?

Current system in the US: You get help IF you are covered and IF the cure exists.
Medicare for all: You get help IF the cure exists, because everyone is covered.

Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? Nope, you won't accept incremental change because it won't save EVERYBODY. Well guess what? Incremental change is how the science progresses, never mind the politics.  A few decades ago HIV infection was completely untreatable. Then there were treatments that could prolong patient's lives, and you would have looked down your nose at those treatments and said "it's not a cure".

It's not like incremental change is the only option available. The US population can vote for Bernie as the next president and have radical systematic change long overdue. I take incremental change any day if that's the best we can have, but there is also Bernie. Even in science you sometimes have radical advancements such as Einstein theory of relativity. Looks like you have totally misunderstood my point. I am not against incrementalism in general, everywhere. I am against corporate centrist incrementalism of the Democrats in the US. It led to Trump and keeps oligarchy in place.

We still don't HAVE a cure. What we have are treatments good enough to mean that people who keep taking their pills don't get sick and don't have a detectable viral load. But they have to keep taking pills their entire lives.

How is this related to the subject? I didn't talk about medical research in Germany or Australia. I was talking about Democratic politics in the US, and in THAT context radical solutions are favorable because of what the political system has been for decades.

That last sentence is so utterly absurd as to barely dignify a response. Medicare for all could be repealed in exactly the same way any other healthcare package could be. You clearly have no understanding of human rights.

The price of repealing human rights is much higher. Once it's in place, people take it for granted and almost nobody dear to question it. Fire department is a human right in the US. Your house is on fire? Nobody asks if you have a fire plan and which rooms your plan covers. Oh, kitchen is on fire? Sorry, your silver plan doesn't cover kitchen! You need our golden plan for that and it costs $500 more than your $1000 silver plan. They come and put it out for you. Rich, poor, doesn't matter. Everyone things it's how it should be and even Republicans are not repealing it. However, when it comes to healthcare, the corporate media brainwashes people to think this kind of insurance policy makes sense in healthcare. Despite of this brainwashing most americans understand medicare for all is the way to go. So, radical change has been ordered by the people. Bernie is the one who can deliver.

[greg]

Well, people get sick today and need healthcare today, not in 100 years. American's have waited improvements for decades and it isn't working. When Democrats are in power you take one step forward (ObamaCare) and then you have Republicans in power and you take one step back (ObamaCare repeal). Once medicare for all is in place, nobody can take it away, because healthcare has become a human right. So, while your philosophy works in many areas of life, the US has come to a point where more radical solutions are needed.

It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing, in the same exact way that marijuana legalization is growing state by state (and people are realizing it's a good thing overall, so federal legalization is just a matter of time).

But I think we already discussed this before...

Patience.

(ironic, coming from me, the king of impatience) 

[71 dB]

It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing, in the same exact way that marijuana legalization is growing state by state (and people are realizing it's a good thing overall, so federal legalization is just a matter of time).

But I think we already discussed this before...

Patience.

(ironic, coming from me, the king of impatience) 

Patience was ok in the 1980's and that's when the Republicans were as right as the corporate Dems are today. I believe Hillary Clinton supported medicare for all in the early 90's before she got more corrupt. If 30,000-45,000 people die each year because they don't have access to basic healthcare it means something like a million people have died so that Big Pharma and insurance company CEOs can buy more yachts. The years of patience are long gone. Obama had the change to do at least public option, but he was too corrupt even for that. Bernie's plan takes four years. That's it. If the US can concur the Moon, it can definitely do this. It's time to finally act. Otherwise it's endless Republican repeals of Democratic increments add nauseum while people keep dying...

8 out of 10 Democrats want Medicare for All to be an 'extremely important priority'

[Karl Henning]

He is actually half correct about Obama, since in foreign policy O campaigned as a moderate leftist but kept most of the centrist policies the Left hates.

Fair enow.

[drogulus]

It won't take 100 years, but if the US can make this work, it will only work after some time and state testing

     Probably not for health care, unless the federal gov't wants it work like that, which would require the kind of cost shifting the federal level exists to do.

     No test will be required. There's nothing to "not work". It's a matter of getting it running and modifying it on the fly.

     Interlude:

Fredkin, sitting on a white sofa, is talking about an interesting characteristic of some computer programs, including many cellular automata: there is no shortcut to finding out what they will lead to. This, indeed, is a basic difference between the "analytical" approach associated with traditional mathematics, including differential equations, and the "computational" approach associated with algorithms. You can predict a future state of a system susceptible to the analytic approach without figuring out what states it will occupy between now and then, but in the case of many cellular automata, you must go through all the intermediate states to find out what the end will be like: there is no way to know the future except to watch it unfold.

This indeterminacy is very suggestive. It suggests, first of all, why so many "chaotic" phenomena, like smoke rising from a cigarette, are so difficult to predict using conventional mathematics. (In fact, some scientists have taken to modeling chaotic systems with cellular automata.) To Fredkin, it also suggests that even if human behavior is entirely determined, entirely inevitable, it may be unpredictable; there is room for "pseudo free will" in a completely mechanistic universe. But on this particular evening Fredkin is interested mainly in cosmogony, in the implications of this indeterminacy for the big question: Why does this giant computer of a universe exist?

It's simple, Fredkin explains: "The reason is, there is no way to know the answer to some question any faster than what's going on."

     You do things to find out how, because there is no shortcut.

   

[greg]

No test will be required. There's nothing to "not work". It's a matter of getting it running and modifying it on the fly.

Uh.

I'm not even going to say anything about this...

edit: Unless you conceive of the idea of "testing" in a different way.

[drogulus]

Uh.

I'm not even going to say anything about this...

edit: Unless you conceive of the idea of "testing" in a different way.

     What would you be testing? Would it be if health care for everyone would work? There will be no test, it will be do or don't and fix it, fix it again, fix it again, forever, just like everything we do now.

     I comment on an investment site where a certain kind of weak minded individual talks about how some object of worry means that a situation will not "end well". I have replied to the effect that I disagreed, not about well, or badly, but about end. It's end that doesn't happen.