I promise that I’ll vote for Biden as long as Biden Boys stop acting so toxic
It does kind of tickle me that people are using the direct $1200 payout that the Senate is deciding about right now as some Universal Basic Income moment. It tickles me pink. The US did something similar in 2008 (the Economic Stimus Act) and after the Dot Com crash in 2001. This is hardly unprecedented. It's an efficient emergency economic stimulus, not UBI.
Pure fucking bad faith hijack job.
Not that we shouldn't do it. We should. But it's in no way makes any sort of case for UBI. It's a fire hose. Not a new entitlement.
You know that your nominee is bad when the strategy is to have him appear in the public as little as possible because you know that whenever he talks, his poll numbers go down. I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s campaign convinced him to not go to the debates
It's not a consequence of the US system. It's a consequence of the US electorate. You folks keep choosing this, and nobody's forcing you to.
Your own source provides the answer that contradicts you;Otherwise I'd like to hear why there would be a difference in the behavior of supporters between Sanders and any other democratic candidate (spoiler: the study has already been performed with no noticeable difference in behavior spotted, save for a lack of passion / motivation for Biden supporters).
Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other follower. There is one key difference that Twitter users and media don't seem to be aware of. Bernie has a lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat's campaigns.
Same for Trump, whose follower numbers are huge by comparison.
The analysis only looks at the percentage chance per capita that a Twitter follower was negative. So Tweets supporting their candidate would, obviously, not count. But, by the same analysis, there's a lot more Sanders followers taking themselves to Twitter in the first place, and we know now pretty conclusively that this does not translate into a greater number of followers at the ballot box. So it's not that there's more Bernie supporters. Just a higher percentage of them on Twitter.
It doesn't actually argue that Bernie Bros don't exist; that greater number of Twitter followers says otherwise. It says Bernie Bros don't get more abusive, per capita, than other followers, but there's more of them, so there's more total abuse coming from Bernie supporters overall (and still more from Trump supporters, by a wiiide margin, I'll note). It's not the rate that gives them the image, it's that absolute figure. People notice the stand-out abuse, and there's a lot more of it coming from the Bernie camp than any other Democratic camp, by the study you linked.
Also; the "Bernie Bro" tag wasn't just about "being negative in Tweets", in the first place, so really, the study doesn't actually establish its premises very well.
I love that you skip over all the salient points and then post something we already know. Not sure what your goal is, but having a conversation about a serious subject isn't it.
@Endus made several points and you ignored them all. Especially about the Bernie Bros and Twitter data.
I just checked the countries with no democracy at all, with dictatorships and no social nets of any kind. Pure fascism countries.
They all have internet, fire service, police, military and abolition of child labour. Why do you think those are something socialism brings?
Does socialism also brings oxygen in the atmosphere?
and the geek shall inherit the earth
Why would he be 'putting out plans'? He isn't even a member of government currently? He has legitimately no say in what is going on beyond merely stating his opinions publicly.
Sanders is still a senator, and member of the senate leadership... Of course he's working on the government's response, that's literally his fucking job.
Last edited by Draco-Onis; 2020-03-21 at 09:31 PM.
It's literally what the words mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electorate
"The people who are eligible to vote in an election, especially their number"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system
"An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined."
Two different terms, for two different (if contextually related) things.
I said "electorate". You responded as if I were speaking of the electoral system. And now you're doubling down because you refuse to admit that you made a mistake.
You now literally have no idea what you're talking about, and the best part, you proved it yourself.
Electorate is not the same thing as the Electoral system. One is a group of people who vote, another is a system of voting.
- - - Updated - - -
The Oatmeal put out a pretty interesting "statement" about that. The doubling down on an opinion someone knows to be wrong, but still doubles down.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
It's a fascinating phenomenon, and it's allowing a lot of Team Deplorable's peeps to continue to doubt science and voting against their interests.
Last edited by cubby; 2020-03-21 at 10:43 PM.
There have been third parties in our country. The Republican Party was a third party. It supplanted the Whigs.
The electorate (IE, voting people), could make a third party viable, at any point. If they wanted to, in say, 1992, they could have voted for Ross Perot to the point that NO ONE got 270 electoral votes.........and we would be forced to go to our backup systems of electing a President and VP. Which, iirc (I'm fuzzy on this), means it would have gone to a vote in the House of Representatives.
The problem is that second part. IF a plurality winner of electoral votes formed the government, but could effectively do nothing because they did not have a majority - we'd have to coalition build. Instead, our Constitution provides a way to solve the plurality-but-not-majority problem.