Are liberals who support Bernie Sanders a cult?

[Fogdog]

See what I mean? Intellectually dishonest, thank you for proving my point

You and I both know you can't respond to the actual substance of the argument because your counter argument fails. You have to pretend my argument is to just ignore racism, even though I just addressed that claim in the previous post. So, to reiterate, my argument is not to ignore racism, it's to call it out while also calling out the inaction of Democratic politicians following through on racism. You support politicians who only choose to call it out and who only serve lip service when it comes to actually supporting policy.

Can you substantiate how effective this one-on-one exchange is? All I hear are anecdotal stories where one person is "converted". This kind of analysis is often inaccurate. My belief based upon my own interactions with racists is that most racists and sexists can't be talked out of their positions. They can only change when they realize their mistaken beliefs on their own. What I do here is for my own entertainment. It's rather shallow and mean of me but I enjoy taunting racists, sexists and pompous asses. I also come here to learn what others are saying. I don't come here because I think anything I say here will change anything or anybody.

I support Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkely and Peter DeFazio. From what I have seen, they are all pretty much in alignment of what we both believe are necessary for the health of our nation. Can you show me how any of those people are in basic opposition to the general ideology of the Sanders Cult to the point where they would cast them out? I haven't chosen a candidate that will get my vote for the Democratic nomination in 2020. I do admit that I can't follow you into the Cult of Bernie.

Speaking of which, let's have a talk about these people you've been hanging out with. Have you noticed that your earlier friends aren't coming around much anymore? Do you get into arguments with those friends over your Sanders beliefs or perhaps they try to avoid the subject altogether? You still are the fun, creative, thoughtful person that you always have been but have you noticed that you exclude others who don't live by your creed and you are becoming more and more tightly knit with only people who believe as you?

I'm not criticizing you but suggest perhaps you might benefit from talking over how your life is going with a counselor. Maybe have an open talk with people who hold different opinions than your cult adheres to. Let them talk without you commenting so that you can really listen.

 

[frigginwizard]

Are you going to make a new cult thread for each and every viewpoint? or can we just stop here and agree that every side had extremists?

 

[trippnface]

See what I mean? Intellectually dishonest, thank you for proving my point

You and I both know you can't respond to the actual substance of the argument because your counter argument fails. You have to pretend my argument is to just ignore racism, even though I just addressed that claim in the previous post. So, to reiterate, my argument is not to ignore racism, it's to call it out while also calling out the inaction of Democratic politicians following through on racism. You support politicians who only choose to call it out and who only serve lip service when it comes to actually supporting policy.

They have the maturity of a young girl in middle school. They see another person they don't like with something they DO like, and so then decide to stop liking the item they just liked.

Petulant Children.

" I am againt war!!! . Oh you are too? Nevermind, I am for war!!!"

 

[Fogdog]

They have the maturity of a young girl in middle school. They see another person they don't like with something they DO like, and so then decide to stop liking the item they just liked.

Petulant Children.

" I am againt war!!! . Oh you are too? Nevermind, I am for war!!!"

number one on the list of how to tell a person is in a cult: Opposing critical thinking

 

[Fogdog]

Are you going to make a new cult thread for each and every viewpoint? or can we just stop here and agree that every side had extremists?

Oh, you clearly don't understand the reason for this thread. I'm trying to help people caught in this harmful cult see a way out.

 

[Fogdog]

Moved to this thread because the topic of our discussion is the Sanders Cult.

Why would a conservative vote for Republican light over a more conservative Republican in a red district?

blah blah blah.

Show me a study that demonstrates your ideas can actually change the opinions of a significant number of people.

 

[Fogdog]

One of the Cult of Sanders axioms is the "Democratic Party's Business Model" completely explains Democratic losses over the past 15 years. The problem with calling it a "model" as it's explained by @Padawanbater2 and used by but not understood by @ttystikk is that it's not a model at all and isn't useful to predict outcomes.

The following is a non-cultist model that uses demographic shifts that explains past results much better and the rather loosely defined and model that The Cult of Sanders Uses. I post this here as a counter-example of the one proposed by Bernie Sanders and to show that there are better ways to predict results than simple belief in the manner that The Cult of Sanders uses.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/04/14/449461/americas-electoral-future-2/

The recent elections of Donald Trump and Barack Obama were influenced in no small measure by shifts in the nation’s underlying demographic structure—the rise of communities of color, the increase in the number of older Americans, the sharpening of education divisions—and the distinctive voting behavior of these demographic groups. This 2018 report of the States of Change project, the fourth in an annual series,1 examines an array of future presidential election outcome scenarios—from 2020 through 2036—that could arise as the demography of the nation and its 50 states changes over the next 18 years.

These scenarios, developed by the authors, include outcomes that favor both Republican and Democratic candidates. They are not intended as predictions but are simulations based on assumptions about different demographic groups’ future voting patterns. Each of the alternative scenarios assumes the same projections for the nation’s underlying demographic structure of eligible voters (EVs) with respect to race, age, and education attainment. As such, the scenarios provide for a more in-depth understanding than national or state polling trends can supply about how emerging voting patterns may interact with changes in the demography of the nation’s electorate to affect future popular vote and Electoral College outcomes.

Note that this is based upon fundamental facts such as predictable shifts in demographics away from conservative white majority to a more diverse society by 2036. What cannot be predicted is how attitudes will shift over time. The authors deal with this by running simulations using various possible shifts in attitudes within demographic groups. For example, a shift towards Republican values by Hispanic demographic would yield a different result than if the Hispanic group remains in the more liberal and Democratic Party's camp.

A conclusion from multiple runs using this model based upon known future shifts in demographics as an underlying explanation for election results: that outcomes like the one in 2016 are more likely to occur over the next decade than not. Later on, the country will move into a more stable and liberal era of governance.

 

[Fogdog]

The researcher whose work is discussed in the above post, Ruy Teixeira, was recently featured in an interview on NPR where he explains his conclusions that California is a leading indicator for how the country's government will resemble fifteen years hence. Also he predicts that the turbulence and shifts in politics that California went through over the past fifteen years will be replicated by the US as a whole.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602090970/look-to-california-for-the-future-of-politics-demographer-says

A lot of smart people spend a whole lot of energy thinking about the future of American politics. Ruy Teixeira argues that, in 10 or 15 years, it might look a lot like California. Teixeira is a demographer. He's a senior fellow with the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, and he co-wrote an article called "The Great Lesson Of California In America's New Civil War." He spoke with Steve Inskeep.

STEVE INSKEEP, BYLINE: What is it that's happened politically in California over the past 10 or 15 years?

RUY TEIXEIRA: Yeah. Well, I mean, people obviously associate California now with being a deep-blue state, which it is, but that was not always the case. The worm started turning in terms of presidential elections earlier. But if you look at the 1990s in California, that's an era of populist revolt, a revolt against bilingual education, against services for immigrants. I mean, Pete Wilson sort of put down his bet that, in fact, the best way for the Republicans forward in California is to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment...

INSKEEP: Republican governor in the 1990s, right.

TEIXEIRA: And then, of course, you had the populist crest with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003.

The interview goes on and can be found in the link, above. The basic take-away from Ruy's work is that the US is now at about the same level as when Arnold took over in California. His failures along with shifts in racial make-up of California explain why California now has the more enlightened and capable Democratic Party in control of their government. To get there required the state to go through turmoil.

 

[Fogdog]

Because the Democratic primary was unfair. I will "bitch and complain" about that until the day I die, in the same way Martin Luther King "bitched and complained" about equal civil rights until the day he died. Stealing an election is undemocratic.

And Trump and Co. will likely go down for it. Good.

Democratic politicians have had the chance to pass policy that would benefit the majority of Americans. They haven't because their donors don't want them to

This is a conversation that can't be had on RIU, because half of you deny the legal campaign contributions Democrats accept are uninfluencable, while condemning Republicans for accepting influencing campaign contributions. Republicans do it it's bad.. Democrats do it it's good..

In other words, half of you are playing for a team, you're not working towards a cause. Those of you are just as much an enemy of progress as the Republicans you claim to hate.

I replied in the Cult of Sanders thread because your post is really about your belief based upon your cult's religious views.

There is no evidence that the Democratic Primary was rigged. This has been confirmed by those who have more access to the facts than you or your cult.

Democrats have passed legislation that benefited the majority of Americans. It's OK to want more. What I don't understand is why the cult would rather have Republicans in control when there is no chance that good legislation like supporting the ACA would be passed by Republicans.

Nobody that are self described as liberal on this board or in Congress oppose campaign finance reform. In fact, every Democratic Senator who had a seat in the 2014 Congress affirmed their support as documented in the national record by their votes. The Democratic Party's platform includes campaign finance reform. Even blue dog democrats such as Manchin supports campaign finance reform. These are facts. You believe that Democrats don't support campaign finance reform.in spite of the facts. It is also a fact that belief without proof is one of the attributes of a cult.

There is no way campaign finance reform will pass if Republicans control congress. In fact there is no chance of campaign finance reform legislation passing unless Democrats control both houses AND have a veto-proof majority in the Senate AND control the presidency. A question for you, a member of the Cult of Sanders: It is a proven fact that campaigns that spend the most have the edge to win. Given that campaign finance reform can't happen until Democrats are firmly in control, why does the litany of the Cult of Sanders include a demand that Democrats give Republicans the edge by refusing legal campaign donations?

Is it better if Democrats follow the beliefs embodied in the Cult of Sanders but lose? This is not to say that Democrats must abandon their stated policy goals of campaign finance reform, universal access to healthcare, a clean environment, support for uniions, support for the same civil rights to everybody, fair distribution of tax burdens, a strong infrastructure and well funded education. Just saying that a true progessive supports progress, not ideological purity.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You are going to have a lot to answer for when Democrats win back control of both houses of congress


You should prepare yourself for that

2018 - 2020 (or until Trump gets impeached) won't matter

2020+ will matter. A Democrat will win, and Democrats will hold both houses of congress

 

[Fogdog]

You are going to have a lot to answer for when Democrats win back control of both houses of congress


You should prepare yourself for that

2018 - 2020 (or until Trump gets impeached) won't matter

2020+ will matter. A Democrat will win, and Democrats will hold both houses of congress

The Cult of Sanders doesn't care about facts. For example you blame Democrats regardless who is in control of Congress.

If you read this post, you may not have understood it.

One of the Cult of Sanders axioms is the "Democratic Party's Business Model" completely explains Democratic losses over the past 15 years. The problem with calling it a "model" as it's explained by @Padawanbater2 and used by but not understood by @ttystikk is that it's not a model at all and isn't useful to predict outcomes.

The following is a non-cultist model that uses demographic shifts that explains past results much better and the rather loosely defined and model that The Cult of Sanders Uses. I post this here as a counter-example of the one proposed by Bernie Sanders and to show that there are better ways to predict results than simple belief in the manner that The Cult of Sanders uses.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/04/14/449461/americas-electoral-future-2/

The recent elections of Donald Trump and Barack Obama were influenced in no small measure by shifts in the nation’s underlying demographic structure—the rise of communities of color, the increase in the number of older Americans, the sharpening of education divisions—and the distinctive voting behavior of these demographic groups. This 2018 report of the States of Change project, the fourth in an annual series,1 examines an array of future presidential election outcome scenarios—from 2020 through 2036—that could arise as the demography of the nation and its 50 states changes over the next 18 years.

These scenarios, developed by the authors, include outcomes that favor both Republican and Democratic candidates. They are not intended as predictions but are simulations based on assumptions about different demographic groups’ future voting patterns. Each of the alternative scenarios assumes the same projections for the nation’s underlying demographic structure of eligible voters (EVs) with respect to race, age, and education attainment. As such, the scenarios provide for a more in-depth understanding than national or state polling trends can supply about how emerging voting patterns may interact with changes in the demography of the nation’s electorate to affect future popular vote and Electoral College outcomes.

Note that this is based upon fundamental facts such as predictable shifts in demographics away from conservative white majority to a more diverse society by 2036. What cannot be predicted is how attitudes will shift over time. The authors deal with this by running simulations using various possible shifts in attitudes within demographic groups. For example, a shift towards Republican values by Hispanic demographic would yield a different result than if the Hispanic group remains in the more liberal and Democratic Party's camp.

A conclusion from multiple runs using this model based upon known future shifts in demographics as an underlying explanation for election results: that outcomes like the one in 2016 are more likely to occur over the next decade than not. Later on, the country will move into a more stable and liberal era of governance.

Over the next ten years, we are likely to see the kind of turmoil in US congress that California had during the years of Pete Wilson and Arnold's governorship. This is because California is ahead of the rest of the country in shifts in demographics. A model based upon demographic shifts is an example of real modeling based upon facts and known effects, such as tendencies of different demographic groups to vote a certain way. The model your cult subscribes to is not at all like that. It is really just a collection of wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Not useful for predicting outcomes.

Perhaps Democrats will capture Congress, the presidency and have a filibuster proof majority in 2020. Probably not. In which case, I expect progress but I don't expect complete success on any of the major issues of the day. A member of the Cult of Sanders doesn't really support progress in the face of adversity, they expect radical change even when the country doesn't yet support that change.

 

[Padawanbater2]

you blame Democrats regardless who is in control of Congress.

You blame Republicans regardless who is in control of congress. For example, you blame Republicans for Democrats not enacting universal healthcare when they held a super majority in congress

 

[Fogdog]

You blame Republicans regardless who is in control of congress. For example, you blame Republicans for Democrats not enacting universal healthcare when they held a super majority in congress

I understand that the Cult of Sanders has no patience for progress in the face of opposition. The filibuster is an obstacle so long as the majority is less than 60 members. There is no way Republicans will allow major overhaul of campaign financing so long as they have control of Congress or if they lose control but still have more than 40 senate seats. It will take control of both houses, control of the presidency and a filibuster proof majority by Democrats before real campaign finance reform can be accomplished.

It's OK that you are not willing to accept the facts. I'm glad we are able to discuss them. What you haven't done is answered an earlier question to you:

It is a proven fact that campaigns that spend the most have the edge to win. Given that campaign finance reform can't happen until Democrats are firmly in control, why does the litany of the Cult of Sanders include a demand that Democrats give Republicans the edge by refusing legal campaign donations?

I can only conclude that you are OK with losing but winning a moral victory. Of course, this would keep control of Congress in the hands of Republicans. That's not progress, by the way.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Republicans got rid of the filibuster as soon as they gained a majority

 

[Fogdog]

What don't you understand about it?

Big money currently controls 95% of the outcome of elections. The majority of politicians are controlled by special interests. We're trying to fix that, so that the majority of politicians are controlled by their constituents.

I ask you again, given that the larger spending campaign has significant advantage. Somewhere around 80-95% of campaigns that spend the most win. How do you expect Democrats to win enough seats to gain a filibuster-proof majority in Congress by refusing legal campaign donations when Republicans will accept any and all legal donations?

 

[Fogdog]

Republicans got rid of the filibuster as soon as they gained a majority

They didn't get rid of the filibuster for legislation.

 

[UncleBuck]

The Bernie ballwashers are insufferable

 

[Fogdog]

The Bernie ballwashers are insufferable

Doesn't seem like they reproduce so it will be over before too long.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I was doing some "homework" today by listening to Limbaugh. He went on a rant about "groupthink" and how bad it was. He said we have to question the "official narrative" in order to be an informed voter. He warned that the media is making up stories in order to fool and supplicate us.

If it were ten times whinier it could have been @ttystikk.

I wonder what it feels like to be washing Rush's balls. Care to share Tty?