Willie71

This past week, Bernie has been polling nationally within a few points of Clinton, within the margin of error. She is still ahead by a thread. Individual states vary quite a bit, and Hillary is way ahead in SC. It's amazing considering there has been basically a media blackout on sanders to this point. His surge isn't surprising to those who follow non corporate media. If Bernie closes the gap in SC, it will be a very big deal.

The problems with health care cuts started in 1991. This oil slump is largely irrelevant as we have a government willing to run a deficit to improve health outcomes.

We had 40 years of conservative governments in Alberta. The federal government is involved in health care, and Harper is on record saying he felt no obligation to fix the problems with health care. This was a major part of both my medical ethics and health care management courses last year. If you are interested, here is some information: https://www.leadnow.ca/defend-our-health/

10 years of conservative governments have chipped away at our health care system. We used to do much better. Harper was moving toward a for profit system.

Interesting that you challenge the people who provide evidence, and not Tar. I did not say opposing opinions do not deserve airtime. What I said is that they don't deserve equal airtime, as the corporate media in America allows. Why do climate change deniers with no scientific, or minimal scientific background, and obvious ties to industry that stand to lose billions, get equal airtime to the people who spent decades collecting the data, checking it, verifying it, trying to falsify it? Just one example of hundreds of examples. Which presidential candidates represent the idea that all guns should be confiscated, by force if needed? Or that all gun owners are criminals just because they own a gun? That is the equivalent of the rounding up of 11 million people and deporting them? Name the candidate who is campaigning on this premise.

Tar is being treated harshly, but he is not being beat up on. Tar refuses to acknowledge in most instances where he has been shown to be uninformed or misinformed. In spite of this, he holds the mistaken opinion that all beliefs are deserving equal respect and airtime. This is a fiction taken from the American corporate media. Unsupported assertions are not equal to well documented and researched information. Trickle down is a lie. The Southern Strategy is real. The Oligarchy is real. Crony capitalism is real. The welfare queen is a lie. Increasing military force in the Middle East increases terrorism. Bernie isn't taking money from your accounts. Wealth redistribution has already happened. These are not topics where all opinions deserve equal support. There is evidence that can guide policy in the future, and the time is critical to act now. Another term or two of the corruption will affect the entire world. It doesn't matter if it's Hillary, Cruz, or trump, there will be a massive invasion. With Cruz or trump, it's promised to go nuclear. How many hundreds of thousands or millions of lives are worth sacrificing on this bizarre idea that both sides have equal fault? How many children need to get brain damage from lead poisoning? How many seniors need to lose their homes, or be denied health care? How about the rest of us who accept the real threat of climate change who will pay the price for big oil profits? Or our children and grandchildren? It's not just about being nice to Tar. It's not an equal debate at all. We need to stop pretending it is.

This has no factual information in it. There are a bunch of republican talking points, some racism, and a total ignorance of homosexuality. Re:Isis: the republican candidates:Isis is so scary, I shit my pants! No, I shit my pants more! No, I shit my pants even more than you! Applause, applause, applause!!!!! Let's commit war crimes, carpet bomb, bring back torture! What about the ticking time bomb? (Doesn't exist.) can you believe Hillary, and her e-mails!? How illegal!!!! How unamerican!

Watching it on TYT with live commentary and live tweets. Funny shit.

It seems many republicans understand strength the same way a schoolyard bully does. Tantrums, posturing, shouting, but easily outsmarted by others.

By using western forces, and killing thousands of civillians, we keep giving fresh recruits to Isis. The more force we use, the more they recruit. This was predicted before going into the Iraq war, and still holds true. Your plan to increase force increases isis' strength, as it confirms that western forces want to destroy their way of life (sounds eerily familiar, for some reason.) Bernie's plan is the smartest, but it results in less profit for the military industrial complex, the main driving force behind the islamophobic rhetoric. He isn't beholden to those donors, but Hillary and the republican candidates are, excepting Trump, but his rhetoric speaks for itself. I think Bernie has the strongest position on the Middle East, and it is the same direction our Canadian Military is going. Trudea is returning Canada's military to its peacekeeping roots, but this requires massive retraining. Unfortunately, a strong nuanced position that takes more than one or two sentences to explain has a hard time with sound bite sized arguments. No doubt Hillary is the most knowledgeable candidate on the players in world affairs, but she is hawkish, and bought by the war Hawks.

Bernie is seen as being weakest on foreign policy, but his policy is sound. Being smart isn't weak. As long as foreigners are trying to put down the radical groups, it fuels animosity towards those foreign powers. He supports King Abdullah who says the fight is for the heart of Islam. They believe the front line needs to be Muslim fighters, with a coalition backing them. He wants to get the middle eastern powers to the table to discuss the issues, which may be naieve, but that was said about Obama being able to get a nuclear deal too. We have to have politicians be more honest about the role of Saudi Arabia and Israel, with their crimes against humanity, and none of the politicians are going there as it is political suicide. All of the other candidates are looking to continue with the bush plan, which Obama expanded on (using fewer ground troops, but more bombing raids) and Clinton will continue to expand this. On the republican side, they are looking at all out war, possibly even using nuclear attacks. They also would go back to torture and carpet bombing civillians, both war crimes. Bernie might not be able to pull it off, but he won't make the problem worse.

Tar, it has been acknowledged that the money in politics is a corrupting force, and Obama a AND Hillary are bought. This is why Bernie is so popular. He refuses to take money from super pacs. We should not support any candidate, republican or democrat who is bought off. I agree Hillary does not have a leg to stand on calling this corruption out. What the democrats don't do, is sacrifice health care, social security, or veterans benefits to make donors richer, but republicans do. Republicans will also use racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, and fearmongering to make their donors richer. I agree fully that both establishment republicans and democrats need to be weeded out, and the only candidate pushing for that is sanders. Trump claims not to be establishment, but has not proposed changes to the oligarchy. He is wisely tapping into the discontent across the nation, but is like Obama, falsely promising change that will not happen. I think the American system is stupid in general. You have to pick one of two parties, and that limits nuance. If I was American, I would be independent, but I would be a Bernie supporter. That would be a problem in the primaries, but not in the general. I don't think anyone who does not think like me is an idiot. If someone voted based on a desire for increase in GDP over wealth inequality, wanted imperialism, and was not concerned with destruction of the planet, and therefore chose a republican candidate, they would be making a smart choice with those values. If they wanted equal opportunity for their children, social security, and affordable health care, they should vote for a candidate who supports those ideas, in this case Bernie. If someone wanted the latter set of principles, and voted republican, evidence says they are ignorant, or misinformed. They become an idiot when the evidence is presented as clear as day, and they held on to the delusion that a republican vote equals health care, education, social security, and equitable wealth distribution.

While at the most basic level, both are taking life, the process and social implications of both are dramatically different. What happens in gitmo or Abu Ghraib are more akin to the death penalty, and Brenie is against those things, while the current republican leaders want to expand those atrocities and human rights violations. Very few people can make a comelling case for isolationism or pacifism in the modern world. The question is will we hold ourselves to a higher ethical ground than those we call barbarians. There is a great divide in how Bernie and the establishment weigh this ethical dilemma. Bernie follows rule based utilitarianism, while the others use utilitarianism. The utilitarians use doublespeak and claim to use virtue ethics, when they clearly are the barbarians.

Sounds just like doublethink.

I just have to post this. I'm re-reading 1984, and just came across this passage again: Sound l,e anything we are discussing?

You supported the king who took the dopamine. You do not take personal responsibility for that?

Tar, the one point in your rambling about dopamine needs more correction than the rest. People are not trying to steal rich people's dopamine, they are trying to get their dopamine back from the corporations that have been taking it from them in larger and larger percentages since Reagan.

What good point? This is how this thread is going: Tar: I believe.... Someone else: That isn't a republican supported policy. Tar: Annecdote unrelated to the discussion. Someone else: Tar, that isn't what we were talking about: Tar: if we elect Sanders, he will take my stuff. I don't have stuff. Someone else: Tar, that is your fear, not what Sanders says. Tar: aren't democrats afraid of bad things too? And on and on it goes. Tar, I am a mental health professional. I agree that words have meaning, what you are arguing is that words are meaningless, that regardless of what people say, it's all code for something else. There is a grain of truth in that, but you rake it way too far. What republicans and democrats say cannot be boiled down to the same thing. Not by a long shot. Where the two parties are the same is the establishment candidates endorse policies that benefit their donors. The only candidate who's donors are regular people is sanders.

Tar, you can't move the goalposts and be taken seriously. Your questions re: democrats are confusing. Of course democrats feel fear, and many make over 50k/year. Some will be homophobes. So what? Their party isn't using those fears to push obscene policies that hurt a lot of people. Yes they are obscene, just like Germany pushed obscene fear based policies in the 1930s. This isn't Godwin's law, as the policies compared side by side are very similar. If you believe you have won any argument here, you are delusional. You have not provided anything but rambling anecdotes, misrepresented others' positions, and avoided admitting where you were proven wrong. Tar, I misread you on Cruz and Trump. I was wrong on that. See how easy that is? I have been corrected several times this thread. Reasonable people admit they are wrong when they get better information.

Tar, I suggested that not believing what the current Republican Party is saying suggests you might not be a republican anymore. You have said they are your team, and you support them. You can't have it both ways. Some of these points have been things you claimed the Republican Party stands for, and we have shown you it doesn't. It's not believing in everything. I asked about the core values. Electing trump or Cruz = carpet bombing hundreds of thousands of people. Elect them, and you are responsible for that. They made it clear this is what they would do. So yes, since you said you would vote for those guys, you are being called out. The only republicans with reasonable positions on national defense are Paul and Kasich. They aren't who you said you would vote for. The fact that large corporations employ people is what? Do they pay their fair share of taxes? Do they pay a living wage? Do they leave the environment in the same condition they found it? Do they buy politicians to rig the game, removing competition? You look at one criterion, and that ends the critical thinking for you. (What you described several posts ago was actually problem solving, not critical thinking btw.) Anecdote: tl/dr. Irrelevant.

Tar, the rules of the game have been changing all along. Wealth has been redistributed from the middle class in the socialist 50's and 60's to the elite. If Reaganomics is so good for business, why aren't there any local grocers, butchers, non franchise hardware stores? Why have most of the mom and pop businesses gone out of business? Why are most goods produced in China, instead of locally? Clinton deregulated banks. Obama never put the regulations back on the banks. No one has been looking out for the average American, not in decades. Obama grew the economy, but only for the wealthy, exactly what is the norm for right wing economics, Obama is only socially progressive. Economically, he is pro corporate. He did use a stimulus package, however, rather than austerity, allowing growth rather than recession.

You would rather pay $10,000.00 in health care premiums to an insurance company compared to $5,000.00 in single payer. You would rather pay more just so it isn't called a tax? You mention the estate tax. This is what prevents the obscenely wealthy from establishing an aristocracy. Generations of people using the infrastructure paid for and maintained by tax payers without contribution from the elite. You made reference to the wealthy not drawing a wage in a previous post. The 1st generation "earned" it. The second generation takes it and uses it, but didn't "earn" it. I don't think an aristocracy us a good thing, You claim the money is going to the government. Partially true. Corruption and misspending require checks and balances. No one will argue there. However, the taxes go to infrastructure, the military, schools, hospitals, policing. Do you believe you can live without those things? Tar, you claim the rules have changed after your hard work. They have, the corporations and banks can take more of what you worked for, and they claim Bernie is trying to take it away from you. He is trying to return what the corporations stole from hard working people and give it back to them. Why you want the corporations and banks to keep it is baffling. Bernie isn't talking about taking your retirement fund away from you. He's trying to protect it. You don't pay estate tax on amounts less than 10 million, or some such high number. Your 600k is untouched. Your kids and grandkids get to go to college too, without student loan debt. Now what happens if you get a form of cancer your insurance doesn't cover. Your 600k won't get you more than a year into cancer treatment. It's all gone. Fair and square. You end up on the street, your kids get nothing. The insurance company made record profits last year since the regulations were relaxed. You must be relieved. They might have even created a few jobs. All worth it. Then you should vote for sanders. He's the only candidate who is trying to end the corporate takeover of America. Commune? Who the hell is suggesting that?

Tar, these are your beliefs. You have been asked to provide examples of policies that show the Republican Party is for the working class, family values, small government, personal freedom etc. Should be easy, right? The Republican Party is for the billionaires. No one disputes that. Their wants are at odds with working people. The less they pay people, the more they make. If they get a monopoly, competition doesn't keep price down, nor does customer service drive quality. Your example of doubling minimum wage has been tried in numerous cities across America. All have enhanced the economy rather than harming it. Keeping wages low harms the economy. That is fact. Doing the math shows that the amount given up in tax breaks to the wealthy is not recovered through taxes on the jobs created. It's always a net loss, and low wages prevent people from having disposable income to stimulate the economy. I don't care what you believe, your evidence is lacking. You weren't clear on which conservatives we were talking about? I was referring to the group defined by the numerous researchers discussed in Mooney's book. What is your definition? Tar, you mentioned people who wish to destroy your way of life. I'm assuming you mean ISIS. Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense, a republican who served under EIGHT presidents says your views are like a child's, and a national security threat. He's on your alleged team even, and he's calling you out.

Tar, please re-read the questions and try to answer them.

Maybe people who reject reality shouldn't be given the keys to the most powerful machine the world has ever seen? Liberals understand conservatives very well. They are impervious to facts and reason. Something 30 pages of this thread has also shown. Conservatives see the world the same way Isis does. Through a mythological lens that puts everyone at great risk. Are you suggesting we give Muslim extremists equal say in political discourse to balance out the secular powers? Just like giving American dominionists equal footing to secular powers? The media needs to stop pandering to these people. Reporters have an ethical responsibility to call bullshit when they see it, but the media is owned by the same people who own the politicians. We need news people like Walter Cronkite who could be trusted to dig into the back story, and tell the truth. When a politician claims climate change is a hoax, they should be sent for a psych evaluation, not given equal air time. When a politician claims Isis is coming across the Mexican border, they should be laughed at, and facts should be presented. If they continue to lie, they should be sent for a psych evaluation, or reported to the police for fraud. They should be treated with the same level of respect as the factual quality of their statements.