Chach

Not really an argument, regardless of what you think of the author there a lot of good points and references confirming the same thing. I really don't like Ben Shapiro but it's hard to argue with any part of this article, all the right wingers are clucking for Bernie to be the nom. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/05/why_the_democrats_wont_stop_bernie_142316.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-bernie-sanders-socialism.html?fbclid=IwAR3LANjMfA4EeLu2tlwDsVQSKd2UuvEOY_wLhETB5UxjYu-yY1_S4U8myv8

1) The idea of socialism exists and its not an election winner in any western democracy, this is demonstrably true, its a demonstrable failure and I'm not sure how many times we have to run the experiment before we realise that it doesn't correlate with human nature. 2) Identifying as left wing doesn't mean you have to have all left wing positions if you understand that human culture is diverse. If people who identify as progressive haven't been made a little bit more conservative by Trump, Brexit, what's going on in Eastern Europe, Brazil. Turkey etc then I would argue they're not really progressive. They're just the other end of the reactionary spectrum.

Sanders represents old style socialism and that is the platform they will fight him on. Liberalism is the only answer, the sooner the left get that in their head the sooner they'll start winning again.

Yeah, nah.

People who want to defeat Trump.

The longer Bernie is in the race the less chance we have of winning.

The ironing is delicious, she wants free expression and she got it.

Bloomberg slips into 3rd. One thing I like about this guy is he makes Trump look like a pauper which is what Trump is uber sensitive about. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-poll/movin-on-up-bloomberg-glides-past-warren-to-no-3-in-democratic-race-reuters-ipsos-idUSKBN1ZT30A

Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Don’t Polarization has changed the two parties — just not in the same way. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/democrats-republicans-polarization.html

We're must be quite politically aligned then, so on that basis (if you're not already familiar) I recommend this podcast which I can't get enough off Outstanding guests and analysis. He's a German political scientist but based in US. https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-good-fight/id1198765424

Yeah same, I wouldn't have picked me putting him last.

@MikeO how does that jive with what you thought before taking the test?

I did this WaPo quiz and turns out I agree with Yang's policies the most (14 out of 20), Mayor Peter second (Sanders and Gabbard last with 7/20 a piece) Interested to see what others get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Thats why beating Trump has to be the priority, he's not even a conservative so it should be easy if you can nominate a candidate who can speak to middle America, isn't woke enough to get drawn into the fringe of the culture wars issues and who is young enough to not die during the campaign. For some reason that seems like a bridge too far. The best candidate is a married gay man.

You are literally just rambling incoherently now in the hope somewhere you accidentally address an argument. All the modelling shows a reduction in GDP, with the economy being 6% smaller in 2030 than it would have been in the EU, if the reduction in GDP is a solitary 1% public finances will be no better off that if they had stayed in the EU. The economy will still grow over that time though and you will claim Brexit a roaring success! Net immigration will continue to increase as the birthrate continues to fall, the jobs will go to the smartest, most educated and hardest working people and those people will not necessarily be indigenous to the Albion of your youth. Life will not be discernibly better and after the union breaks up and England's political clout recedes further and all the people who thought Brexit would put the globalist genie back in the bottle are either dead or in some final irony have scarpered on a retirement visa to Spain, those left will hold another referendum to Rejoin. This is a blip, more cooperation and more union is the only answer in a modern world that has problems that do not have a national solution.

I'm sorry Steve but this is the kind of virtue signalling post that have our conservative friends levelling claims that the Off Topic forum is a liberal echo chamber, you've said nothing there other than that you consider your morals to be greater than others, to the point you also say you are losing real life friends over it? That is how the left will continue to lose, in politics I am fairly sure a large proportion of the electorate hold their nose and vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils and conservatives have just as much right to do that as anyone else.

You absolutely swerved the key part of the post where no one gave a toss about any of the things you keep claiming Brexit is about. Immigration will continue because both sides of politics understand it's a key driver of economic growth and diversity and creativity in an economy. A points based system is going to do nothing to alleviate the concerns of people that feel their communities are changing quicker than they would like, at least with a points based system there will be some truth to the claims "they are coming and taking our jobs" because only skilled/qualified people will be coming and they will be. My experience of living in a points based system is all the concern about the levels of migration get projected onto very small vulnerable sections of society like asylum seekers.

I also like how reactionaries are still trying to claim that Brexit has something to do with sovereignty and our relationship with the EU when you can't find a single poll pre-vote where those things were registering seriously in the concerns of voters. How many of those 17.4m (+ Reactionary Party Guru) are going to be disappointed when they realise the immigration continues, the economy is contracting and the Tory party are now New Labour 2.0.

I also like how @TallPaul1878 is now just downvoting any posts that are rebutting his Daily Mail talking points rather than engaging honestly, even when said posts help explain why he so taken in by Daily Mail talking points.

I like how conservatives keep on claiming that there is "left wing" inertia against Brexit when it's probably one of the most left wing things to happen to the UK in modern history. The Tory party has now moved so far to the left on economic policy that one wonders if there will be any space for a new post-Corbyn Labour party to occupy once it recovers, the European Union is the biggest experiment in free market capitalism since Adam Smith. A vote for Brexit was not a vote for capitalism it was a vote for protectionism, not a vote for conservatism but a vote for National Populism.

Its very hard to engage with someone when they give sweeping generalisations that can be unpicked very easily, you can't have a proper discussion until you get to a substantive argument and taking the extreme examples of the left (or right) and then projecting that onto the whole group as the basis of your argument is actually acting in bad faith and a strawman. The fact of the matter is that it's been demonstrated that peoples politics are not even based on reason, Hume first posited this in his Treatise on Human Nature in the 18th century and all the evidence since has confirmed that people rely on intuition first based on which of the six moral foundations they favour (via genes and then adaptaion by experience) and then reason in a post hoc fashion to justify their intuition like a politicians press secretary. Left leaning people make the common mistaken accusation that conservatives don't care about other people or are racist because they are concerned about levels of immigration but the research shows they just value other moral foundations such as in loyalty and authority equally/more. These are mine (green) hard to for me to argue that I am a balanced so I have committed in the Brexit/Trump era to try and understand conservatives positions more, but to do that you lot also need to understand us more and have arguments that appeal to our sentiments as well as your own.

Ok so first off, those quotes from Hillary Clinton did not accuse TG of being a Russian asset, she alluded that Russians had a favourite candidate that they were assisting with bots and that's a demonstrable fact, the context was a discussion on a podcast about the GOP's strategy and it was Gabbard's decision to misquote her in the hope she could use it for political gain, but how is that a "social marxist agenda"? Also, please supply an example of a mainstream Democrat leader getting involved in the pile of on JKR or MN. You don't have leave the thread, I'm sure @MikeOis planning to remove those downvotes when he's calmed down.

Can you give some examples of where the "the left leaning parties have seen fit to push a social marxists agenda and embarked upon a purity spiral where they eat their own."

Yesterday on Twitter he took credit for declining cancer death rates. Just consider the mentality of someone making that connection, also someone needs to explain to him what a lagging indicator is.