Chach

16 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

He lies and changes opinions hourly, his thoughts on the matter mean nothing.

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

50 minutes ago, Matt said:

I agree with what I think you mean but 2 things;

1) socialism doesn’t truly exist at the moment 

2) definitions of basically all sides have been simplified to such an extent that they’ve become nonsense / labels for people to affiliate themselves too. 

for example, I’m apparently a right wing centralist liberal according to my beliefs purely because I’ve got a range of opinions. But that doesn’t fit in with the media and the “easy to understand”, or “woke” ( :lol: ) times. 

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.

18 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

none of them are in a great position to beat Trump, but Sanders is better than most.  He has a lot of similar positions to Trump on things like free trade, manufacturing, US jobs, the things that the blue collar workers voted for Trump for.  I'd argue he's the best candidate of who the democrats have.  Neo- Liberalism is not the answer. 

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.

1 hour ago, johnh said:

This seems to be the Democrats on-going problem.  The above could have been written about Hilary (and probably was).

Yeah, nah.

10 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

who are you referring to as "we" ?

People who want to defeat Trump.

On 02/02/2020 at 06:04, MikeO said:

Powerful stuff.

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

11 hours ago, pete0 said:

Bit cruel even if it is Katie Hopkins. 

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

13 hours ago, Sibdane said:

I had Yang as well, but I'm not surprised. I've been a fan of his, and he's actually my first choice even though I doubt he'll come close to getting the nomination. 

Also had Buttigieg/Biden close second at 10/20.

Edit: I had Sanders last with 6/20 and Warren/Gabbard second last at 7/20. I'm kind of surprised by that.

 

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

1 minute ago, MikeO said:

I didn't really have much idea about any of them to be honest, not really been enervated by it; the only thing that surprises me is that Sanders is so low. From the little I know about him, based mostly on what's been posted on here, I thought I was politically pretty aligned with him but it seems not.

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

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

On 18/01/2020 at 20:48, StevO said:

Pete Buttigieg then?

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/

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

That's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I've always been more of an idealist than a pragmatist. It's not that I claim to have superior morals or anything like that: I'm suggesting that the journey can be more important than the destination. How can a less compassionate leader result in a more compassionate society? How can a leader who mocks and ignores the law lead to a more just society? How can a war-monger lead to greater peace among nations? How can an intolerant narcissist encourage society to be more intolerant and inclusive? I just don't see it.

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.

6 hours ago, RPG said:

My understanding is that genuine asylum seekers (as opposed to economic migrants chasing free welfare) will not have their situation changed at all - apart from possibly for the better due reduced demand on the system elsewhere allowing for more resources to be focussed on their needs.

Wrt your first para and your list; Economy came in first (I commented that it will improve post brexit), Immigration was second on your list (I commented about the points based system being an improvement) and NHS was third on your list (I commented about huge increase in post brexit spending on NHS under Johnson). So, your argument that 'noone gives a toss about what I think brexit is about' (GE19 was a second referendum by proxy) tends to unravel a bit as it actually covers the top 3 items on your own list.

There are other things of course. But if you don't believe in sovereignty and are unable or unwilling to differentiate between nationalism and patriotism then there is no point in debating those issues with you.

I sincerely believe that life in UK will be better post brexit. Others do not. That is fine. Neither of us is likely to convince the other. All I can suggest is that it would be much easier all round if those that do not agree with brexit could at least accept it is happening. We have already lost over 3 years due to dirty, underhand manoeuvres and it is, imho, time for everyone to accept the reality and embrace brexit if you welcome it or to make the best of it if you don't.

Either way, it is happening.

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.

16 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The fundamental issue raised by Donald Trump is whether any means can justify an end. I have plenty of friends who believe that the thriving stock market and the possibility that abortion might be banned justifies supporting an immoral, narcissistic liar. I cannot agree, however. For me, a person's character is more important than their policies.

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.

12 hours ago, RPG said:

Another misunderstanding by the anti brexit brigade. All brexiteers I know are not anti immigration at all. They are anti uncontrolled immigration. Big, big difference. Moving to a points based 'Australia style' system is just fine. I have experienced exactly that style of immigration myself during periods of expat work (or temporary immigration if you prefer the term) in three separate countries over a 24 year period. In each country my right to remain resident was tied to my keeping my job, and either I or my company had to pay for very expensive PHI for myself and my family so that neither I nor my family were ever a financial drain on the host country. We also have to behave. If I am sent to jail for any reason then I serve the sentence followed by immediate deportation.

It is a system that works well. It is lucrative for the expat and allows the host country to keep control of its population base. All you have to do is work hard, respect indigenous culture and obey the law. Is it really too much to expect exactly the same from those who try to move to UK?

So, to answer your questions in your last sentence;

Immigration continuing is fine provided we have more control over it and concentrate on immigrants who will be an asset to our country, agree to assimmilate and will not be a drain on our limited resources.

All indications re post brexit economy are far more positive than you suggest.

The Tory party are never going to be Labour 2.0 but I think I know where you are coming from with that comment and the levelling of the playing field between north and south and committed expenditure to NHS, police, Armed Forces etc can only be a good thing, irrespective of left or right, can't it.

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.

15 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I find talking to progressives really difficult. I get the impression that they act in bad faith, the constant demand for examples etc just has you chasing your tail rather than them trying to take on board and understand your thoughts and feelings.

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.

50 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Okay I'll bite one more time as I have quickly found that this is an echo chamber.

The vilification of Tulsi Gabbard and accusations that she is a Russian asset by Hillary Clinton is quite possibly the worst example of it. Some lesser examples are the dog piling of people like Martina Navratilova and JK Rowling over their stance on gender identity.

Again, I'm leaving this thread now as I'm not keen on having my rep downvoted away for not being pure enough.

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.

5 hours ago, TallPaul1878 said:

Calling your opponents deplorables, racists, bigots and Nazis is hardly endearing. The vast majority of people are liberal leaning, live and let live. Unfortunately the left leaning parties have seen fit to push a social marxists agenda and embarked upon a purity spiral where they eat their own.

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."

6 hours ago, MikeO said:

Thing I find disturbing (one of the many at least) is that I can't think of another political leader who has been so boastful of himself and his achievements; not even if you delve into the worst dictators in living memory did anyone talk about their personal greatness (talking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, various Korean Kims & Ayatollahs) anywhere near as much, if at all; it was about the cause (no matter how twisted their reasoning). The only person I can compare him to is a young Cassius Clay, difference being that Trump means and believes it and the man who became Ali was being a showman; and a lot of what he said he backed up with actions whereas Trump just barefaced lies.

I think there's a whole psychosis textbook to be written on his behaviour and that of his followers and apologists.

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.