Hillary Clinton Refuses to Quit Burning Bridges - Says "Nobody likes him [Bernie Sanders]"

[senseamp]

Thanks for admitting you were just being cute in your prior response.



We don't have direct evidence from genetic studies of group differences yet to get a real consensus, but "100% environmental" doesn't seem like it would be a default hypothesis.

"Default Hypothesis—whatever the factors are that influence individual differences in IQ, the same factors would influence average group differences. Since there is overwhelming evidence that genes influence the former, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that genes at least partially influence group differences. Within the context of understandable social justice sensitivity, however, this hypothesis is an anathema. " -- Richard Haier



Flynn effect doesn't disprove anything because a large gap still exists, ironically in a lot of liberal bastions. It would have to close considerably more to cast doubt.

WIthin races? Fallacious.

https://twitter.com/x/status/689689065621491714

If it's this bad that it's 100% environmental indicative of suboptimal environments in a rich country, why do you talk about incremental change? Afraid of tax increases? Just the other day I saw Dave Chappelle support Yang's UBI arguing that it would do a lot for the community.



Nobody is going to get much done if they don't take the Senate, too. Even then, moderate Democrats could still block doing away with the filibuster. FYI, just this will be a gigantic improvement from Obama.

Sanders: I won't be as naïve as Obama was with Congress

Sanders said that after a “brilliant campaign” Obama made a mistake by expecting that he could easily negotiate with the other party.

www.politico.com

Bernie is not going to help the Democrats win the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats who aren't Socialist who won't vote for him.

 

[Vic]

Thanks for admitting you were just being cute in your prior response.



We don't have direct evidence from genetic studies of group differences yet to get a real consensus, but "100% environmental" doesn't seem like it would be a default hypothesis.

"Default Hypothesis—whatever the factors are that influence individual differences in IQ, the same factors would influence average group differences. Since there is overwhelming evidence that genes influence the former, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that genes at least partially influence group differences. Within the context of understandable social justice sensitivity, however, this hypothesis is an anathema. " -- Richard Haier



Flynn effect doesn't disprove anything because a large gap still exists, ironically in a lot of liberal bastions. It would have to close considerably more to cast doubt.

WIthin races? Fallacious.

https://twitter.com/x/status/689689065621491714

If it's this bad that it's 100% environmental indicative of suboptimal environments in a rich country, why do you talk about incremental change? Afraid of tax increases? Just the other day I saw Dave Chappelle support Yang's UBI arguing that it would do a lot for the community.



Nobody is going to get much done if they don't take the Senate, too. Even then, moderate Democrats could still block doing away with the filibuster. FYI, just this will be a gigantic improvement from Obama.

Sanders: I won't be as naïve as Obama was with Congress

Sanders said that after a “brilliant campaign” Obama made a mistake by expecting that he could easily negotiate with the other party.

www.politico.com

Can you quote where I said 100% environmental? Because I have never said that. Obviously, there are genetic variations in human intelligence, they're just not dependent on skin color, and under normal circumstances the degree of genetic variation is generally less than what can be created through environment.

The reason I am for incremental change is because dramatic change results in violence and other unintended consequences, such as in Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, etc. That speaks for itself. Every time in history that dramatic change occurred, left, right, otherwise, countless people died and/or suffered.

Why should I care what Chappelle's thinks about UBI? That's just yet another appeal to authority from you.

And finally, I doubt the Dems will get the Senate if Bernie runs. The reality is that despite Republican propaganda, most Democrats and liberals are not socialists. That's why most Democrats and liberals do not like Bernie, and also why Bernie is not a Democrat. And also why Republicans want the Democrats to run a socialist.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bernie is not going to help the Democrats win the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats who aren't Socialist who won't vote for him.

Democratic-Socialist.
As in... believes in having enough of a government, to tax and return a portion of the economy to the people. So they can... live.

To be to the right of that sounds an awful lot like bootstrap territory given where automation and the value of labor is heading. People need a helping hand, and that is all Bernie and the rest of the "far left" want. As the economy leaves more people behind, we will grow in number.

 

[senseamp]

Democratic-Socialist.
As in... believes in having enough of a government, to tax and return a portion of the economy to the people. So they can... live.

To be to the right of that sounds an awful lot like bootstrap territory given where automation and the value of labor is heading. People need a helping hand, and that is all Bernie and the rest of the "far left" want. As the economy leaves more people behind, we will grow in number.

I am telling you what I hear from especially older Democrats. Because of his Socialist demagoguery, Bernie is widely seen as an anti-Capitalist. Most Democrats and Moderates want well regulated Capitalism with a good safety net, and might even go as far as Warren, but Bernie is just a bridge too far for them. He would lose to Trump and cost Democrats the chance to win the Senate.

 

[Vic]

Democratic-Socialist.
As in... believes in having enough of a government, to tax and return a portion of the economy to the people. So they can... live.

To be to the right of that sounds an awful lot like bootstrap territory given where automation and the value of labor is heading. People need a helping hand, and that is all Bernie and the rest of the "far left" want. As the economy leaves more people behind, we will grow in number.

Are you familiar with the Scottish Clearances? During the late 18th to early 19th centuries, chiefs and landlords in the Scottish Highlands discovered they could make more money raising sheep on their lands than they could by renting them to subsistence tenant farmers. And as it takes a lot less people to herd sheep, the landlords evicted the tenant farmers, resulting in mass emigration (mostly to America and Australia) and countless deaths.
Now, I'm not a doomsayer on automation, but if I were, the last thing I'd be worried about is people losing their jobs. I'd be worried about what's going to happen when the new automation 'landlords' start asking themselves why we need so many people on this planet. Then it's not going to a question of 'living,' it's going to be a question of surviving.

 

[nakedfrog]

Bernie is not going to help the Democrats win the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats who aren't Socialist who won't vote for him.

Good to know they support burning things down if they don't get their way too, I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[senseamp]

Good to know they support burning things down if they don't get their way too, I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They might not support Trump, but they won't turn out to vote for Bernie either because he is a Socialist and not a Democrat.

 

[Maxima1]

Bernie is not going to help the Democrats win the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats who aren't Socialist who won't vote for him.

They've cried wolf too many times. I do think Biden is better positioned in the swing states than Broom Hilda was, but I also think Bernie is also.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223530474422853632

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223981150269517824

And finally, I doubt the Dems will get the Senate if Bernie runs. The reality is that despite Republican propaganda, most Democrats and liberals are not socialists. That's why most Democrats and liberals do not like Bernie, and also why Bernie is not a Democrat. And also why Republicans want the Democrats to run a socialist.

Nixon talked about UBI and universal health care. Carter admin had introduction of single payer legislation. In recent decades these are super radical because?

Can you quote where I said 100% environmental? Because I have never said that. Obviously, there are genetic variations in human intelligence, they're just not dependent on skin color, and under normal circumstances the degree of genetic variation is generally less than what can be created through environment.

Group differences. The "non-racist" position is that it has to be 100% environmental obviously. Although individuality brings up a point. Many won't call you a eugenicist if you believe that compared to the median, low IQ parents will generally have low IQ kids and attractive parents will generally have attractive kids.

The reason I am for incremental change is because dramatic change results in violence and other unintended consequences, such as in Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, etc. That speaks for itself. Every time in history that dramatic change occurred, left, right, otherwise, countless people died and/or suffered.

This doesn't make sense. A lot of countries -- even those not fully developed -- transitioned to universal health care or subsidized higher education. The pathetic part on higher education is that you could probably get most of it funded (assuming no attempt to reduce cost structure) just with reforming the ridiculous military disability system.

Why should I care what Chappelle's thinks about UBI? That's just yet another appeal to authority from you.

He says it would help a lot in the black community. You disagree? The safety net programs are rather meager (only one temporary cash benefit program) with low rates of those eligible receiving, and obviously there are more minorities making little to zero income each year than other groups.

 

[mect]

I am telling you what I hear from especially older Democrats. Because of his Socialist demagoguery, Bernie is widely seen as an anti-Capitalist. Most Democrats and Moderates want well regulated Capitalism with a good safety net, and might even go as far as Warren, but Bernie is just a bridge too far for them. He would lose to Trump and cost Democrats the chance to win the Senate.

And the younger voters aren't going to turn out for a moderate like Biden that just wants government to start talking nice again while continuing to pillage the working classes.

 

[Maxima1]

And the younger voters aren't going to turn out for a moderate like Biden that just wants government to start talking nice again while continuing to pillage the working classes.

Bernie or Bust XD

 

[fskimospy]

It's always interesting to me how The Candidate That Can Get Democrats To Turn Out is always whatever candidate an individual prefers. Democratic turnout will be extremely high regardless of who the nominee is. Trump hatred will drive it.

If defeating Trump is your #1 goal then what you probably want to find is who appeals most to those who switched from Obama to Trump in the swing states in 2016.

 

[senseamp]

More like Bernie and bust. He's McGovern 2.0.

 

[mect]

It's always interesting to me how The Candidate That Can Get Democrats To Turn Out is always whatever candidate an individual prefers. Democratic turnout will be extremely high regardless of who the nominee is. Trump hatred will drive it.

If defeating Trump is your #1 goal then what you probably want to find is who appeals most to those who switched from Obama to Trump in the swing states in 2016.

Well, yeah, I think most people if they're honest will realize that any of the candidates have a very high probability of beating Trump in the general election. I mean, Trump won by extremely unlikely margins over and over again in 2016. The chances of that happening again are pretty low, particularly when you take into account that voter turnout will almost certainly be significantly higher, which favors democrats. So what is really left is to try to persuade primary voters towards one's preferred candidate. A powerful lever people employ is the fear of Trump. If you can't persuade someone that your candidate is better on merits alone, then you can always try to bring in fear of losing to Trump.

 

[qliveur]

Are you familiar with the Scottish Clearances? During the late 18th to early 19th centuries, chiefs and landlords in the Scottish Highlands discovered they could make more money raising sheep on their lands than they could by renting them to subsistence tenant farmers. And as it takes a lot less people to herd sheep, the landlords evicted the tenant farmers, resulting in mass emigration (mostly to America and Australia) and countless deaths.
Now, I'm not a doomsayer on automation, but if I were, the last thing I'd be worried about is people losing their jobs. I'd be worried about what's going to happen when the new automation 'landlords' start asking themselves why we need so many people on this planet. Then it's not going to a question of 'living,' it's going to be a question of surviving.

You could've just posted this:

 

[woolfe9998]

It's always interesting to me how The Candidate That Can Get Democrats To Turn Out is always whatever candidate an individual prefers. Democratic turnout will be extremely high regardless of who the nominee is. Trump hatred will drive it.

If defeating Trump is your #1 goal then what you probably want to find is who appeals most to those who switched from Obama to Trump in the swing states in 2016.

Yes, exactly this. The argument over a progressive versus moderate candidate has always come down to base turnout versus appealing to swing voters. But not this time. Trump is all we need for high turnout this time. Which suggests to me that the candidate who has openly called himself a socialist may not have the highest probability of winning.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's always interesting to me how The Candidate That Can Get Democrats To Turn Out is always whatever candidate an individual prefers. Democratic turnout will be extremely high regardless of who the nominee is. Trump hatred will drive it.

If defeating Trump is your #1 goal then what you probably want to find is who appeals most to those who switched from Obama to Trump in the swing states in 2016.

Given low voter engagement, you could also always try nominating someone who is able to inspire and attract new voters.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nm

 

[hal2kilo]

More like Bernie and bust. He's McGovern 2.0.

My first presidential vote. Yea, careful what you wish for.