the 2020 democratic candidate (and VP)

Fogdog said:

Sanders isn't a radical leftist. I wouldn't call him centrist but he's not very far left of center.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Universal healthcare
Universal college
Raising the minimum wage
A living wage
Climate change
Military industrial complex
Private prison industry
Public education
Science
Reproductive rights
LGBT rights
Regulations on marijuana
Civil rights
...

Again, can you name a single thing Sanders doesn't agree with the majority of the American people on outside of gun control and capital punishment?

No, you can't. But I'm guessing you can sure dig up more pointless personal attacks that won't address the points made or provide your own..

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

HAHAHAHA

you are funny.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

don't insult the guy, he's pretty far left of center.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

View attachment 3879675

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

I'll support Sanders if he wins the nomination in 2020. I'll give him the nod as front runner right now given that I know him better than others. I'd prefer a man who is younger for the reason that I'm concerned the Democratic party leadership all looks pretty old and out of touch. Also concerned that Sanders didn't get good support from Black and Latino factions in the Democratic party. That said, I support the policies he ran on last year. No reason why other candidates voicing the same positions can't be as good or better.

And so, I'm open minded right now. Except for Booker. I haven't seen much from him that I like.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

You trot that matrix out every now and then. Why should we pay it any attention? I don't see Clinton as being where she was placed there. I agree with it mostly but you seem to think it is something more than a subjective idea of the author.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

I agree he is too old to pragmatically run as a viable candidate in 2020. But if he were to kind of "train" someone to carry his torch who could competently lead the way, I would support them. Sanders should hang it up and go down in American history as the guy that finally shook shit up. Although that entirely depends on how the Democratic party moves forward.

Retards like UncleBuck would have you believe people like me support dear leader unquestionably! When in actuality, that isn't the case at all. I support what he says, what he stands for. If he started saying some bullshit about the white race being superior, I'd seriously begin to question ol' Bernie's mental capacity.. This shit is bigger than him. It's always been bigger than him. These same sentiments have been brewing inside of me since before Obama became president. Now Trump won. Now it's time for all of us to look at ourselves in the mirror.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

View attachment 3879675

Click to expand...

ArcticGranite said:

Where's Barack?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Authors; www.politicalcompass.org , a group of professionals who do similar matrices for other elections as well. The point is that it supports exactly what you just said above; that Mr Sanders is anything but an extreme leftist.

Rather, it's the American political climate that's so badly skewed to the authoritarian right... also known as fascist.

EDIT: this and other similar analyses are found at www.politicalcompass.org

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

View attachment 3879683
Mr Obama wasn't running, you'll notice all the dots are candidates.

Notice who won and his position on the map. Classic banana Republic dictator territory.

So who's the extremist?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Authors; www.politicalcompass.org , a group of professionals who do similar matrices for other elections as well. The point is that it supports exactly what you just said above; that Mr Sanders is anything but an extreme leftist.

Rather, it's the American political climate that's so badly skewed to the authoritarian right... also known as fascist.

EDIT: this and other similar analyses are found at www.politicalcompass.org

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

There is a fundamental flaw in the arithmetic behind the scores in the matrix. Going through the questions and scoring answers is fine. Adding the numbers together to generate overall scores is what I'm objecting to.

For example:
ans score
do you like oranges Yes 1
do you like apples Yes 1

Total for "likes fruit" 2

The score looks pretty scientific. I got a 2 for liking fruit. The problem is, the numbers aren't continuous. They are categorical values. As such, trying to add them up is nonsense. Just like adding apples and oranges would be.

That matrix gives an impression of a linear x,y grid but the impression is false. While the general relationship between the different people on the matrix is true the picture is misleading. The relatively small difference between Clinton and Trump shown in the matrix does not mean she is "33%" closer to Trump than she is to Sanders. What the matrix shows is that Clinton is less authoritarian than Trump and more so than Sanders. The relative spacing between them on the matrix is meaningless. A ranked order list would produce a more accurate picture:


Leadership style, Social policies
Trump Strongly Authoritarian Hard Right
Sanders Centrist Moderate Left
Clinton Moderate Authoritarian Moderate Right

It's not a colorful matrix and doesn't catch the eye but it doesn't pretend that these leaders are classified with the precision implied in the figure you posted. I also agree that the list is fucking ugly and hard to read, which is why political compass doesn't use something like them.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

You don't see me doing such ruler gazing, do you? I think the points are pretty accurate in general terms. I also think they're pretty good to see how close their positions are.

Sometimes it is useful to generate a map, even if the points aren't precise.

What it shows, as an example, is that Mrs Clinton was every bit as conservative as her political opponents in terms of corporate freedom, money policy, etc- but not as authoritarian as the Republican candidates, whose positions were so close by and large as to have lots of outright overlap.

In other words, the very distinction without a difference that @Padawanbater2 and I have been saying cost her the election with a disaffected citizenry who wanted CHANGE! -and didn't believe her for a minute when she promised she'd bring it.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Just saying the graph isn't as informative as it looks. Those locations on the x,y grid are not what they seem to be. They are an addition of apples, oranges, tomatoes, giraffes and platypuses or is it platypussies? I'll have to go look that up.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Of course, but you present a false dichotomy; 'incremental progress' or 'regressive regime'

We had the option of radical change, something history shows us is what is supported by a majority of voters. People who voted for Obama wanted radical change. Didn't get it. They wanted radical change again in 2016, Clinton offered more of the same. Trump pushed to "Make America Great Again", that message resonated. Clinton lost the same pivotal states Trump won to snag the election to Sanders during the primary, his critics condemning him for only attracting "white, middle-class voters"..

Hindsight, right..?

Click to expand...

tangerinegreen555 said:

The biggest problem is a very uninformed and stupid electorate that falls for stupid slogans and fake news.

You see it here every fucking day.

How else do you elect a president with 46.1% of the vote that has a 40% approval rating before he starts?

People wanted change? Sounds like a change from a common cold to terminal cancer to me.

I think Obama did well. People forget how horrible things were when he took office because people in this country are very self centered with an 'all about me' attitude. And I don't see that changing.

And nobody is bringing lost jobs back, who the fuck even believes shit like that?

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

I agree, shouldn't that go for any politician?

If Trump opposes TPP, why would I oppose him on it? That doesn't make sense. You support the guy you oppose when he supports or opposes the same things you do. You don't obstruct and try to block everything he does like Mitch McConnell did with Obama just to do your part in ensuring he fails. If you do that, you look like a little bitch who supports party over country, like McConnell. If you support Trump in places you actually agree with him, and oppose him in places you don't, you look like the level headed, pragmatic politician people want to reelect. We get to look back on Obama's administration and actually have a legitimate reason to point to when we say he didn't accomplish everything he said he was going to because the Republican congress' first priority was to obstruct progress.

Click to expand...