Big Lies of Our Time in the United States

nan said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:
 I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.
But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.

This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?

 For the record, on this childish quibble started by nohero, drummerboy actually asked paulsurovell for the definition of a strawman.  drummerboy often asks for basic things to be explained, so it was understandable that Paul provided him with the definition.  So, there was no need to carry on about what should have been a simple exchange of information, not related to the TOPIC of big lies told in the US.  I remember when nohere used to actually stay on topic, explore ideas and back up his views with meaningful facts. That nohero seems to have been replaced with a petty, bitter creature, obsessed with voter shaming,  alleged Russian interference, and denial of even the most minor of DNC transgressions. Wish I had a cure for this outlook affecting so many, but maybe if we go back to discussing the lies so many believe we can find some answers.

 Correct me if I'm wrong, DB, but the way I read Drummerboy's question wasn't that he was asking what a strawman argument is, but rather which part of his post paulsurovell considered a strawman.

Edited to add: I guess I was right, based on DB's last post.

yeppers

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

 You may be right, or not. But it's now 2018, we have a certifiable lunatic in the White House, and we need to look forward and try to figure out how to fix the problem. 

 Right.  But the only way we are going to get out of this mess is if we can make an honest appraisal of why we lost an election that should have been a slam dunk.  As long as folks like dave, sbenosis, and their thought leaders in the DNC  continue to pretend that responsibility for HRC's astounding defeat rests solely with a couple of Green Party voters and a Bernie bro, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

BG9 said:

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

And who was UNELECTABLE in the Democratic primaries? You know, the primary elections, the campaign which determined the Democratic nominee?
At least Clinton got the largest popular vote, unlike Bernie.

 You know who might have been electable?  One of the candidates who was deterred from running by the Clinton machine and their puppets in the DNC who picked the winner years before the first primary.

The lesson of 2016 is that primaries should be conducted in a clean and honest manner without the DNC machine putting it finger (or in this case, its entire, smokey, bloated, back room body) on the scale.

Klinker said:

BG9 said:

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

And who was UNELECTABLE in the Democratic primaries? You know, the primary elections, the campaign which determined the Democratic nominee?
At least Clinton got the largest popular vote, unlike Bernie.

 You know who might have been electable?  One of the candidates who was deterred from running by the Clinton machine and their puppets in the DNC who picked the winner years before the first primary.
The lesson of 2016 is that primaries should be conducted in a clean and honest manner without the DNC machine putting it finger (or in this case, its entire, smokey, bloated, back room body) on the scale.

 It's worth remember that the current structure of the DNC is, in part, a response to the last time things were conducted in a clean and honest manner and George McGovern got slaughtered.

Perhaps a larger lesson is that the DNC should try to represent all Democrats and not just the entitled members of a dynasty that should have ended back on January 20, 2001.

HC lost because of her campaign's complacency and not reaching out to voters in the rust belt. I don't pin that on the DNC because she did win the popular vote and had high name recognition (and negatives that could have been overcome with more outreach).   I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general, but did note that many many Bernie voters didn't quite understand the whole 'one of these is worse than the others' concept after the primary.  The Green Party is useless and probably is being used to hurt Dems.

tjohn said:
 It's worth remember that the current structure of the DNC is, in part, a response to the last time things were conducted in a clean and honest manner and George McGovern got slaughtered.

 Yup.  How's that working out for you?

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

 You may be right, or not. But it's now 2018, we have a certifiable lunatic in the White House, and we need to look forward and try to figure out how to fix the problem. 

 Right.  But the only way we are going to get out of this mess is if we can make an honest appraisal of why we lost an election that should have been a slam dunk.  As long as folks like dave, sbenosis, and their thought leaders in the DNC  continue to pretend that responsibility for HRC's astounding defeat rests solely with a couple of Green Party voters and a Bernie bro, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

 We've had THOUSANDS of posts making appraisals (honest and otherwise) about why we lost. At some point, we have to call "enough", and get on with the future. I think we're there, and see no value in making additional division over what was. Especially given that many of the more persistent posters here show ZERO willingness to accept that they may wrong.

All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.

Klinker said:

tjohn said:
 It's worth remember that the current structure of the DNC is, in part, a response to the last time things were conducted in a clean and honest manner and George McGovern got slaughtered.

 Yup.  How's that working out for you?

I was merely noting that the DNC created things like super delegates in response to the McGovern disaster.  It's not as if the Clintons came in and completely reworked the DNC to suit themselves.

Reality check:

drummerboy:

I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.

paulsurovell:

This is a strawman argument.

It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.

By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.

drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?

paulsurovell:

Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

dave said:
The ham sandwich won the primary and should have beat the bologna sub.

 Bologna sub!!!

Cup of arsenic.

Klinker said:

The lesson of 2016 is that primaries should be conducted in a clean and honest manner without the DNC machine putting it finger (or in this case, its entire, smokey, bloated, back room body) on the scale.

 OMG, that's exactly how the Republicans ran their Primary!

If Trump thought the Dems were going to run their Primary that way he might have chosen to seek the Democratic Nomination.

The "smoke filled rooms" got us Abe Lincoln. Open and honest Primaries got us DJT.

Klinker said:
All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.

 Suggest you check out Sen. Kaine, including his family background. 

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

The question in bold above is clearly asking What's a strawman?  It's very likely db is getting strawman mixed up with a type of scarecrow.

Perhaps some would like a candidate like this gentleman.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/10/michael-avenatti-presidential-run-iowa-2020-771291

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

 One word: UNELECTABLE.
Nuff said.

 You may be right, or not. But it's now 2018, we have a certifiable lunatic in the White House, and we need to look forward and try to figure out how to fix the problem. 

 Right.  But the only way we are going to get out of this mess is if we can make an honest appraisal of why we lost an election that should have been a slam dunk.  As long as folks like dave, sbenois, and their thought leaders in the DNC  continue to pretend that responsibility for HRC's astounding defeat rests solely with a couple of Green Party voters and a Bernie bro, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

 fixed that for you

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

 It was the only example he cited in his argument. Therefore a straw man argument.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

 It was the only example he cited in his argument. Therefore a straw man argument.

 Actually, I think it's you that doesn't understand what a strawman is. My post was clearly not setting up a strawman - it was an explanation for why most Americans would only think of the USSR when they thought of socialism/communism. It in no way said that the only existing socialist state was the USSR. Not even close. 

But this is fun. Keep it up. I'm sure you're winning some converts.

So here we are, still rehashing 2016.  No wonder the GOP is tromping all over us.

sac said:
So here we are, still rehashing 2016.  No wonder the GOP is tromping all over us.

 Are they? I've been looking at Election Results and don't see that at all. A District that went heavily for Trump and Republican candidates for 30 years has again apparently elected a Republican by less than 1%.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

 It was the only example he cited in his argument. Therefore a straw man argument.

LOST said:

Klinker said:
All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.

 Suggest you check out Sen. Kaine, including his family background. 

 He's an Irish guy from the Midwest.  Am I missing something?

Klinker said:

LOST said:

Klinker said:
All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.

 Suggest you check out Sen. Kaine, including his family background. 

 He's an Irish guy from the Midwest.  Am I missing something?

 Tim Kaine would be a horrible Democratic nominee.  He's to the right of Hllary Clinton.  He's in a "Right to Work" state.  He supports everything military.  And he seems like a fun sponge.

nan said:

Klinker said:

LOST said:

Klinker said:
All I can say is that if Tim Kaine is the Dem nominee in 2020, I will not throw away my vote in a lost cause. That sandwich has clearly turned.

 Suggest you check out Sen. Kaine, including his family background. 

 He's an Irish guy from the Midwest.  Am I missing something?

 Tim Kaine would be a horrible Democratic nominee.  He's to the right of Hllary Clinton.  He's in a "Right to Work" state.  He supports everything military.  And he seems like a fun sponge.

 I was shocked when she picked him as her running mate.  It was a doubling down on every thing that made her unappealing in the first place.  

And then went on to lose the white male conservative vote anyways.  What was the point?

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
Reality check:
drummerboy:
I can't figure out what the highlighted passage even means. And the last statement is meaningless. Of course Americans will think this - it's the only world they have experience in - and the most famous example of a something approaching a socialist system was the USSR - decidedly less free then the U.S.

But it doesn't mean they think the two are inextricably linked. The only reason the word socialist is more accepted now in the U.S. is because the population of people who grew up with the USSR is dying.
paulsurovell:
This is a strawman argument.
It's a matter of definition, and a matter of the degree to which social (collective) needs are assured through social insurance and government intervention in the private sector, as well as the proportion of the economy that's in the public sector.
By these standards, most of Western Europe is largely socialist.
drummerboy:

 I honestly do not understand your post. What's a strawman?
paulsurovell:
Citing the USSR as the only example of socialism is a straw man argument.

 But he didn't. He said it's the most famous example, not the only example. FFS, paulsurovell get a grip.

 It was the only example he cited in his argument. Therefore a straw man argument.

 At least be honest about this one. 

LOST said:

sac said:
So here we are, still rehashing 2016.  No wonder the GOP is tromping all over us.

 Are they? I've been looking at Election Results and don't see that at all. A District that went heavily for Trump and Republican candidates for 30 years has again apparently elected a Republican by less than 1%.

 I meant for the last two years and, in particular, with federal judiciary appointments.  I'm really not sure what will happen with elections this fall.  But if a Republican wins by 1%, he (or she, but probably he) still wins and that might not have happened if Democrats would get their act together rather than all the infighting.