2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

circadian

circadian wrote: »

I had to stop reading there. It's completely unreasonable to blame those that voted third party. A Democrat threatening to hit a person for exercising their right to vote for who they see fit.

Honestly, it's pretty obvious that Sanders would have performed better than Clinton. He had the ability to draw third party voters, independents and even moderate Republicans (I work with many republicans and Sanders would have been their primary choice over Trump)

The DNC and media associated with it ridiculed Trump and made him a joke. There was no attempt by Clinton to debate, regardless of how outrageous his statements were. Her platform was purely "I'm better" or "I have more experience"

Whether people like it or not, Trump engaged the working class because of his stance on things like the TPP and taxation. His racist, sexist and xenophobic ramblings only served those that would have voted for him anyway.

A Sanders v Trump election would have been a clash of populist candidates and Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

I stopped reading your post after that too, so have no idea what your message is. It matters not what you then developed as an argument, and paid attention to explaining, as I decided that what you had said was something that I didn't want to listen to. I made up my mind and checked out of the argument. Safe in the space I had kept hermetically sealed off from other viewpoints and opinions that conflicted with mine.

Is it not bizarre to flaunt this chosen ignorance?

Igotadose

circadian wrote: »

Honestly, it's pretty obvious that Sanders would have performed better than Clinton. He had the ability to draw third party voters, independents and even moderate Republicans (I work with many republicans and Sanders would have been their primary choice over Trump)


A Sanders v Trump election would have been a clash of populist candidates and Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

I lived outside Seattle for 10+ years, and listened to "Brunch with Bernie" on the Thom Hartmann show at least once or twice a week during the commute to work. Listening to Bernie, I became convinced he'd be a dreadful President and Presidential candidate. He's a nanny-state open-the-money-trough-to-the-public-servants 60's-era leftie. Saddest thing in this election is that there was no one else to oppose Hillary. Trump/Bernie might've been Nixon/McGovern II, with McGovern having a better, but not great chance.

I don't know if he'd have 'wiped the floor' with Clinton. The newsweek article included a lot of the RNC's 'book' on how to beat Bernie, and he's got huge skeletons in his closet, too.

So, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I didn't see Bernie winning; about the only thing that made it possible is that Trump was so obvious with his emotions and inner self. Imagine creepy Ted Cruz or Kasich v. Bernie; not even close.

What's needed now, is new blood running against Trump. I have no idea who that is, though. Elizabeth Warren? Maybe, not the greatest candidate ever. Someone boring like Chuck Schumer? Better. Grayson?

Rjd2

Brian? wrote: »

I was just reading about Bannon in an article in the times, it doesn't bode well.

Shouldn't matter whether you consider himself, right wing, left wing,centre etc this guy been in such an important position is horrific.

B0jangles

This guy did a quick summation of what happened just yesterday in for Trump's transition team:


https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/798708532493381633/photo/1

State of play in various government departments:


https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/798688983131754496/photo/1

This is normal, right?

https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/798675613733109760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Note on Jared Kushner, he's apparently leading a purge on anyone still in the trump team that is linked to Chris Christie , if you wonder why, this might have something to do with it:

In the summer of 2004 Kushner was fined $508,900 by the Federal Election Commission for mishandling of campaign contributions.[9] In 2005, following an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey,[10] Kushner was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering.[11] The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Chris Christie, negotiated a plea agreement and Kushner was sentenced to two years in prison and released after one year. [12][13][14][15] As a result of his convictions, Kushner was suspended and disbarred from the practice of law in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.[7][16][17][18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner

Payback for his Dad.


But according to Donald it's All Fine and we'll get to find out who'll be running the U.S. on next weeks episode of The Apprentice: Whitehouse 2016:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798721142525665280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

B0jangles

Director of the NSA all but outright states that Wikileaks was actively used by Russia to achieve a specific effect:

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/798647324687929344/video/1

oscarBravo

circadian wrote: »

I had to stop reading there.

[...]

Honestly, it's pretty obvious that Sanders would have performed better than Clinton.

It might be less obvious if you hadn't stopped reading.

K-9

Sanders would have nullified the anti establishment stuff coming from Trump.

He'd have been seen as change as well, yeah he's a leftie but he was against a protectionist candidate so both offered old ideologies!

Magnate

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just came across this article from Newsweek which demolishes the conspiracy theory that the DNC rigged the primary and the adorably naive idea that Sanders could have bet Trump.

I'm sorry but the ignorance here makes my blood boil. This article has weak man fallacy written all over it.

It focuses on four things - super delegates, the debate schedule, emails from May onwards and the "Russian hackers" angle.

To quickly debunk these 4 ideas.

1. The issue Sanders supporters had with the super delegates was more so how the media reported it. They claimed Clinton had an insurmountable lead from the very beginning and not once did they mentioned these delegates would switch to the popular vote winner.

2. The debate schedule - see this email https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688#efmASYAcT

Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.

3. Emails - The fact that the article tries to deny the DNC's clear and early bias towards Clinton and ignores the fact that the DNC chair was forced to resign for coordinating against the Sanders campaign says it all really. There's a lot more damaging emails from much earlier than May. Oh, did I mention that the DNC also supplied all debate questions to Clinton ahead of time? There's too much in the emails to mention it all but I'll leave it at that. Start here if you want to find out more.

4. Russian Hackers - Ugh. First of all there's no evidence it was the Russians, just baseless accusations. If you want to go down that rabbit hole start with Seth Rich. Otherwise here's what former UK Ambassador Craig Murray had to say. "I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks."

Also, FBI investigated the Russia - Trump link and found nothing. -> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

But let's imagine it was the Russians. So what? That doesn't excuse the wrongs the DNC & the Clintons have committed, who cares who the source of the leak was?


Finally, let me get onto the real bones of the Sanders camp argument. Election & Voter fraud.

http://mattforney.com/dnc-leak-voter-fraud/

Here's the motherlode though, compiled by Election Justice USA.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2&pli=1

Here's their conclusion, fully backed up in the 100 page linked document.

We have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA’s legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1)Targeted voter suppression 2) Registration tampering 3) Illegal voter purges 4) Exit polling discrepancies 5) Evidence for voting machine tampering 6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Finally, we gave a date-by-date, state-by-state overview of each of these fraud or suppression types at work throughout the course of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign."

A brief compilation of additional video evidence and testimonies:

Chicago Audit Witnesses describe discrepancy between hand counted totals and machine totals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30EUNvrIjU

Arizona Public Testimonies on Purging/fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2togSItA77E

AZ SoS confirming Purges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P6t9BXms2o

More AZ testimony on fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rtlOk5E4eA

California Poll Worker and Voter Testimonies: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxaKJP5FaDlndXpuSmVvSGM3dmc/view?pref=2&pli=1

San Diego Public Testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNcpyEsefc

California Audit Bernie Ballots Whited Out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTPmZsCXHng&feature=youtu.be

California Poll Irregularities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3rFZ9cAXmA

New York Public Testimonies on Fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5S1penT9Nc

Election Activist describes problems with NY Primary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1obwHf6QvMM

NY Audit Witness prevented from Witnessing Audit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6x8Z4NLUAA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m36s

Postcards with improper dates being sent to newly registered NY voters: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49w61x/i_received_a_notice_in_the_mail_saying_that_the/?st=ir40cat0&sh=fdd9b524

Voter Suppression in Puerto Rico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Df-Poz3Eo

NY (brooklyn) voters vanish from database day before primary http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/officials-investigating-why-126000-voters-were-purged-from-ny-rolls/

THIS is what the Bernie Or Bust Movement is up in arms about. Fraud. Not some stupid debate scheduling or the fact that super delegates exist.

But hey, Trump won. Now the public's finally getting a chance to see the bias the media showed towards Clinton in the General, don't for a second believe it wasn't the same in the primary. The polls weren't "wrong" - they were intentionally skewed, emails confirm this. Internal polling was right all along. Hillary cancelled her fireworks celebration days before the election.

I'll leave you with this. https://www.quora.com/With-all-the-resources-available-supercomputers-genius-mathematicians-etc-how-did-all-the-polls-get-the-election-result-so-wrong/answer/James-Compton-6

If I've learned anything this year, it's that the mainstream media can't be trusted. Do your own research and form your own conclusions, check the sources for everything. The level of propaganda in this election cycle was mind blowing and terrifying. It's true what they say, an uninformed public is the greatest threat to democracy.

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

I'm sorry but the ignorance here makes my blood boil. This article has weak man fallacy written all over it.

It really doesn't.

Even if you buy into the notion that there was the degree of electoral fraud you suggest (and there wasn't - time and time again these claims are proven to be without foundation), the problem for Bernie was that he just don't get the votes (adding in all those 'stolen' votes). Pretending that the DNC emails, or Hillary getting questions ahead of time actually swayed the outcome is pretty implausible. Bernie's podium work was good, and he articulated his platform very well - but the punters simply didn't prefer him to Hillary. Time to move on.

Magnate

alastair wrote: »

It really doesn't.

Even if you buy into the notion that there was the degree of electoral fraud you suggest (and there wasn't - time and time again these claims are proven to be without foundation), the problem for Bernie was that he just don't get the votes (adding in all those 'stolen' votes). Pretending that the DNC emails, or Hillary getting questions ahead of time actually swayed the outcome is pretty implausible. Bernie's podium work was good, and he articulated his platform very well - but the punters simply didn't prefer him to Hillary. Time to move on.

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who just dismisses evidence without backing up their argument.

alastair wrote: »

but the punters simply didn't prefer him to Hillary.

Ha. Please don't tell me you actually believe that.

marienbad

Magnate - might I ask you who won the California Democratic Primary ?

Magnate

marienbad wrote: »

Magnate - might I ask you who won the California Democratic Primary ?

Clinton of course

marienbad

Magnate wrote: »

Clinton of course

What happened to all the Bernie voters at those rallies ?

Magnate

marienbad wrote: »

What happened to all the Bernie voters at those rallies ?

A combination of some or all of the following.

1)Targeted voter suppression 2) Registration tampering 3) Illegal voter purges 4) Exit polling discrepancies 5) Evidence for voting machine tampering 6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types.

It's honestly worth your time reading through this. Please give it your time. -> https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/confirmation-bernie-won-california-by-at-least-100000-votes/

“Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.

“The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”
Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis

When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties, they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Trump said the election was rigged too.

marienbad

Magnate wrote: »

A combination of some or all of the following.

1)Targeted voter suppression 2) Registration tampering 3) Illegal voter purges 4) Exit polling discrepancies 5) Evidence for voting machine tampering 6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types.

It's honestly worth your time reading through this. Please give it your time. -> https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/confirmation-bernie-won-california-by-at-least-100000-votes/

This is why Donald Trump is president today - because the Bernie boys and girls just couldn't let go, preferring to live in fantasy land rather than vote for HRC .

And just a couple of footnotes as we are at it

- why wouldn't there be a bias to HRC from the DNC ? After all she is a lifelong member that has campaigned relentlessly for any number of democratic candidates down through the years whereas Bernie ( just like Donald on the other side ) is just a blow in and has already declared that he is reverting back to being an Independent /

- Donald Trump would have hammered Bernie in a general election

Magnate

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump said the election was rigged too.

You can be sure Clinton tried her very best to rig the general.

See the difference is with the general election, she was limited to vote tampering within the margin of error. So let's say a vote for Hillary was worth 1.2 and a vote for Trump was worth 1, Trump still wins if he wins by a good amount, and I suspect that is what happened.

But anyway, completely disregarding that, the primary was much easier rig because depending on the state, you had to be registered as a democrat to vote. So it was possible to purge voters from the database and flip voter registrations on a mass scale.

What's strange about being required to be a registered member of a party in order to cast a vote as to who that party puts forward as their Representative?

Some states don't require it, but others do. And of course, it was all open and obvious and available long before the days in question.

Heck, check out voteforbernie.org which explicitly lays it out!

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who just dismisses evidence without backing up their argument.

Your choice. But I note you're simply ignoring the reality that more people chose to vote for Hillary over Bernie. Their votes are the reason Bernie didn't get a nomination - nothing else.

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

It's honestly worth your time reading through this.

One would intuitively expect that the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Pure conspiracist guff. Intuit that!

Magnate

alastair wrote: »

Your choice. But I note you're simply ignoring the reality that more people chose to vote for Hillary over Bernie. Their votes are the reason Bernie didn't get a nomination - nothing else.

Reality is subjective, but I appreciate it's a tough pill to swallow.

Billy86

marienbad wrote: »

- Donald Trump would have hammered Bernie in a general election

I do agree to some extent that the 'vast conspiracy' against sanders is quite overblown, but I would also highly, highly doubt that bit I quoted. This was an election of personalities, not of policy or experience or anything else. Like it or lump it, sanders has a lot more of that than Clinton, also has a penis (because yes that's a sad truth for some voters also), was able to create far more fervour/excitement/enthusiasm than Clinton. These may not seem like or possibly even be good reasons to vote for a candidate, but they clearly are what us voters gravitate to for whatever reasons.

And most importantly, he was appealing to the same anti establishment base as Trump as well as on bringing the jobs home, which would have cut considerably into perhaps Trumps two largest blocs.

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

Reality is subjective, but I appreciate it's a tough pill to swallow.

Reality isn't subjective at all - he objectively lost the nomination. Because enough people didn't vote for him.

Magnate

Magnate wrote: »

Reality is subjective, but I appreciate it's a tough pill to swallow.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/tweetstorm-bernie-sanders-former-press-secretary-amazing

Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) July 25, 2016 wrote:

But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some.

Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) July 25, 2016 wrote:

It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symone_Sanders

Symone Sanders was the national press secretary for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Magnate

alastair wrote: »

Reality isn't subjective at all - he objectively lost the nomination. Because enough people didn't vote for him.

Okay you don't believe there was voter fraud. But suppose there was and Hillary stole the nomination as a result and nobody knew about it. Your reality and the reality of everyone else would be that she won fair and square, because enough people didn't vote for Sanders.

However the true reality in that case, which I happen to share is that voter & election fraud did occur.

Billy86

Magnate wrote: »

Reality is subjective, but I appreciate it's a tough pill to swallow.

No, you're being a bit ott to be honest. Sanders didn't do as well in urban areas because the status quo suits them quite well at present as opposed to the more rural areas (who came out massively for Trump on those grounds) and also because sanders economic plans, much like Trumps, we're not very good. Bring g production home, protectionism, etc are not good for an economy if they come from left or right.

That said, I still would have preferred him to Clinton or Trump. Shake up the system etc, but without all of the nastiness and validation granting of sexism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. I also believe he would have been more likely to follow through on the shake up than Trump looks to be, so far.

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

Okay you don't believe there was voter fraud. But suppose there was and Hillary stole the nomination as a result and nobody knew about it. Your reality and the reality of everyone else would be that she won fair and square, because enough people didn't vote for Sanders.

However the true reality in that case, which I happen to share is that voter & election fraud did occur.

You're confused about the difference between opinion and fact. Your opinions (and those of the people you link to) are no substitute for actual facts. Factually - you've no case with regard to a degree of voter fraud that ensured Bernie lost the nomination. He was simply out-voted.

KingBrian2

The Republicans deserved to win they fielded more candidates than the Democrats and if you look at the Democrats they are hardly known by anyone. Someone like Jessie Jackson or Joe Biden or Ron Paul campaigning as a Libertarian would have been far more liked by the people.

Magnate

alastair wrote: »

You're confused about the difference between opinion and fact. Your opinions (and those of the people you link to) are no substitute for actual facts. Factually - you've no case with regard to a degree of voter fraud that ensured Bernie lost the nomination. He was simply out-voted.

I presented you with a hypothetical situation to prove reality could be subjective.

As for having no case, I gave you with plenty of "facts" which you chose to disregard.

K-9

Who knows who'll come along in 016?

Nobody foresaw Obama in 08 either.

Magnate

Magnate wrote: »

I presented you with a hypothetical situation to prove reality could be subjective.

As for having no case, I gave you with plenty of "facts" which you chose to disregard.

Why is facts in inverted commas? Is it because they weren't facts?

Why do you believe 'some blog post on the internet' over Bernie's press secretary?

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

I do agree to some extent that the 'vast conspiracy' against sanders is quite overblown, but I would also highly, highly doubt that bit I quoted. This was an election of personalities, not of policy or experience or anything else. Like it or lump it, sanders has a lot more of that than Clinton, also has a penis (because yes that's a sad truth for some voters also), was able to create far more fervour/excitement/enthusiasm than Clinton. These may not seem like or possibly even be good reasons to vote for a candidate, but they clearly are what us voters gravitate to for whatever reasons.

And most importantly, he was appealing to the same anti establishment base as Trump as well as on bringing the jobs home, which would have cut considerably into perhaps Trumps two largest blocs.

Men and women voted for Trump the sexist card is being used way too often these day. It had nothing to do with gender Trump getting elected. He already got those voters in the primaries. Are their sexist out there yes but they were always in the bag like the Democrats have a portion of the minority voters in the bag just waiting in the voting booths. For these guys it was an easy election.

alastair

Magnate wrote: »

I presented you with a hypothetical situation to prove reality could be subjective.

No you did not.

Magnate wrote: »

As for having no case, I gave you with plenty of "facts" which you chose to disregard.

"facts" are not facts. If your mate with the voter fraud theories doesn't 'intuitively' understand that rural conservative voters are no more likely to vote for any Democratic candidate, leaving the field of remaining rural voters just as likely to vote for Bernie as Hillary - and that Hillary fared far better with urban/minority voters than Bernie did, so why would anyone expect Bernie to be favoured by urban counties?

brevity

Billy86 wrote: »

Including Obamacare, until a Republican is in office when all of a sudden it's not so bad.

They don't care about the deficit now either.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/deficit-donald-trump-republicans-231372

K-9

alastair wrote: »

No you did not.


"facts" are not facts. If your mate with the voter fraud theories doesn't 'intuitively' understand that rural conservative voters are no more likely to vote for any Democratic candidate, leaving the field of remaining rural voters just as likely to vote for Bernie as Hillary - and that Hillary fared far better with urban/minority voters than Bernie did, so why would anyone expect Bernie to be favoured by urban counties?

Suppose Hillary supporters would then have faced the choice:
Sanders or Trump?

Magnate

alastair wrote: »

No you did not.

Jesus christ.

Okay let's flip the situation and say Sanders won but secretly rigged it. Your reality would be that he won fair and square based on your knowledge and your known facts. But this case you wouldn't know all the facts(that he secretly rigged it). If you then found out that he rigged it, your reality would be that he rigged it and didn't win fair and square.

Now lets say you never find out that reality, because you refuse to consider new evidence. Your reality is that he still won fair and square. Now imagine Bernie goes to your friend and admits he rigged it to win, your friend's reality is that he rigged it.

Reality is subjective.

You are using the word reality when you mean perception.

alastair

K-9 wrote: »

Suppose Hillary supporters would then have faced the choice:
Sanders or Trump?

I'm talking about the nomination vote. Clearly most Hillary supporters would have voted Sanders, if he had got the nomination, just as most Sanders supporters voted for Hillary. I have my doubts about Sanders faring any better than Hillary did though - aside from the antipathy for anything leftist in the electorate mainstream, there's his religion. Still a lot of anti-semitism about.

marienbad

Magnate wrote: »

Jesus christ.

Okay let's flip the situation and say Sanders won but secretly rigged it. Your reality would be that he won fair and square based on your knowledge and your known facts. But this case you wouldn't know all the facts(that he secretly rigged it). If you then found out that he rigged it, your reality would be that he rigged it and didn't win fair and square.

Now lets say you never find out that reality, because you refuse to consider new evidence. Your reality is that he still won fair and square. Now imagine Bernie goes to your friend and admits he rigged it to win, your friend's reality is that he rigged it.

Reality is subjective.

Are you for real ? Facts are still facts even when you don't know about them .

Magnate

Deleted User wrote: »

You are using the word reality when you mean perception.

There's a difference between objective & subjective reality.

Your subjective reality (perception of the objective reality) is a result of what you choose to believe and what you believe to be true given what you know. It cannot take into account what you do not know.

Feck it I'm out. Better things to be doing.

marienbad

Magnate wrote: »

There's a difference between objective & subjective reality.

Your subjective reality (perception of the objective reality) is a result of what you choose to believe and what you believe to be true given what you know. It cannot take into account what you do not know.

Feck it I'm out. Better things to be doing.

that is not reality though is it ?

Magnate

Magnate wrote: »

There's a difference between objective & subjective reality.

Your subjective reality (perception of the objective reality) is a result of what you choose to believe and what you believe to be true given what you know. It cannot take into account what you do not know.

Feck it I'm out. Better things to be doing.

So yes.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are using the word reality when you mean perception.

Everyone and their mother uses the term reality to mean your 'objective reality'.The term 'objective' is redundant. They also use perception to mean what you are calling 'subjective reality'.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

that is not reality though is it ?

Nope. Because reality isn't a subjective condition - that's merely perception.

Akrasia

alastair wrote: »

I'm talking about the nomination vote. Clearly most Hillary supporters would have voted Sanders, if he had got the nomination, just as most Sanders supporters voted for Hillary. I have my doubts about Sanders faring any better than Hillary did though - aside from the antipathy for anything leftist in the electorate mainstream, there's his religion. Still a lot of anti-semitism about.

Trump probably had the racist anti semitic paranoid conspiracy theory votes sown up alright, but Sanders was very popular amongst independents and his message was just as anti establishment as Trumps, and he promised a lot for middle America, promises that are 'extreme' when viewed through american eyes, but centrist compared with many other advanced economies.

Sanders' version of hope wasn't vague platitudes about 'making America great again' It was about giving the american people the same rights and standard of living that is taken for granted in other nations, and by spreading the wealth a little bit, the vast majority of americans would be much better off.

I have absolutely no doubt that Sanders would have won this election against Trump.

Trump won by bringing up his opponents murky past and using that to negate his won murky past. Sanders' past is his record of faithfully standing up for what he believes in.

Trump won by appealing to a quarter of the population of America. Sanders would have energised the other 75%

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump probably had the racist anti semitic paranoid conspiracy theory votes sown up alright, but Sanders was very popular amongst independents and his message was just as anti establishment as Trumps, and he promised a lot for middle America, promises that are 'extreme' when viewed through american eyes, but centrist compared with many other advanced economies.

Sanders' version of hope wasn't vague platitudes about 'making America great again' It was about giving the american people the same rights and standard of living that is taken for granted in other nations, and by spreading the wealth a little bit, the vast majority of americans would be much better off.

I have absolutely no doubt that Sanders would have won this election against Trump.

Trump won by bringing up his opponents murky past and using that to negate his won murky past. Sanders' past is his record of faithfully standing up for what he believes in.

Trump won by appealing to a quarter of the population of America. Sanders would have energised the other 75%

The country that is moving towards the nationalist right would have voted for an anti-American communist over Trump? Sure they would have.

Akrasia

Magnate wrote: »

Jesus christ.

Okay let's flip the situation and say Sanders won but secretly rigged it. Your reality would be that he won fair and square based on your knowledge and your known facts. But this case you wouldn't know all the facts(that he secretly rigged it). If you then found out that he rigged it, your reality would be that he rigged it and didn't win fair and square.

Now lets say you never find out that reality, because you refuse to consider new evidence. Your reality is that he still won fair and square. Now imagine Bernie goes to your friend and admits he rigged it to win, your friend's reality is that he rigged it.

Reality is subjective.

But only one version of events is true, is actually real.

Nobody knows everything, we have beliefs about reality to various degrees of certainty, but the underlying facts about reality are true or false independently of what your beliefs are. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle aside)

The reality is that we all live inside our own brains version of reality. Our mind creates a model of the universe based on our brain chemistry, our past experiences, our genetics and the information that we have previously and currently have access to.

But objective reality is what is independent of our own perception. Science is the art of separating out the signal from the noise. Getting the underling truth of something from a messy jumble of information by experimenting, repeatedly under carefully controlled conditions, and recording the results so that we can make objective claims about the nature of reality.

Radio waves can transmit information because we understand very well the exact properties of those waves at different frequencies and wavelengths, and we can build machines to take advantage of those signals to transmit information via 'thin air'

Reality is not subjective when a million people can independently tune in their radio to the same frequency and hear the exact same song broadcast at the same time.

Akrasia

Suryavarman wrote: »

The country that is moving towards the nationalist right would have voted for an anti-American communist over Trump? Sure they would have.

A quarter of the U.S. voters voted for Trump in a two horse race, and he still won.

You can conclude that the U.S. is moving towards 'the nationalist right' based on that, or you can conclude that the majority of people have lost faith in the establishment politics and wanted to throw a hand grenade into the system.

Your charactarisation of Sanders as an 'anti american communist' is the best that the Trump campaign could have come up with, and I think that Sanders could have defused that by comparing his position with an american hero like Roosevelt, and promising to offer the American a New Deal to rebuild the middle class

In fact, when Obama was being called a communist by the same people who call Bernie a communist, he did exactly that, he pointed at FDR. Obama was elected in no small part because people wanted a new FDR, but he wasn't dedicated enough and compromised too much with the establishment and the republicans. Sanders could have won by tapping into Obama's voters hope and idealism, and promising to deliver this time.

marienbad

Akrasia wrote: »

A quarter of the U.S. voters voted for Trump in a two horse race, and he still won.

You can conclude that the U.S. is moving towards 'the nationalist right' based on that, or you can conclude that the majority of people have lost faith in the establishment politics and wanted to throw a hand grenade into the system.

Your charactarisation of Sanders as an 'anti american communist' is the best that the Trump campaign could have come up with, and I think that Sanders could have defused that by comparing his position with an american hero like Roosevelt, and promising to offer the American a New Deal to rebuild the middle class

In fact, when Obama was being called a communist by the same people who call Bernie a communist, he did exactly that, he pointed at FDR. Obama was elected in no small part because people wanted a new FDR, but he wasn't dedicated enough and compromised too much with the establishment and the republicans. Sanders could have won by tapping into Obama's voters hope and idealism, and promising to deliver this time.

Sanders has given too many hostages to fortune over a long career . Trump and the GOP would have made mince meat of him .

Look how they succeeded in convincing so many HRC belonged in jail rather than running for election , this despite being investigated for 30 years and never convicted of anything

Christy42

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump probably had the racist anti semitic paranoid conspiracy theory votes sown up alright, but Sanders was very popular amongst independents and his message was just as anti establishment as Trumps, and he promised a lot for middle America, promises that are 'extreme' when viewed through american eyes, but centrist compared with many other advanced economies.

Sanders' version of hope wasn't vague platitudes about 'making America great again' It was about giving the american people the same rights and standard of living that is taken for granted in other nations, and by spreading the wealth a little bit, the vast majority of americans would be much better off.

I have absolutely no doubt that Sanders would have won this election against Trump.

Trump won by bringing up his opponents murky past and using that to negate his won murky past. Sanders' past is his record of faithfully standing up for what he believes in.

Trump won by appealing to a quarter of the population of America. Sanders would have energised the other 75%

Trump would have just fit the word communist into his speeches and making communists the great enemy (maybe avoiding saying Sanders is a communist directly).

K-9

Suryavarman wrote: »

The country that is moving towards the nationalist right would have voted for an anti-American communist over Trump? Sure they would have.

Trump won, or did very well with the disaffected union vote, Sanders would have cleaned up there.