• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
When doctors say that the free lunches and quality pens that drug reps give them don't influence their decisions, psychological science says they are wrong. Reciprocation has a powerful effect and on average it does influence their decisions. But we would all bristle at the claim that said Doctor was bought and paid for. This is where a legitimate concern begins to creep into the political woo that solves everything.

Similarly, from the lobbyists point of view, they are playing against a stacked deck. Most people want to make it as hard as possible for them to succeed. So they must lobby. If they didn't lobby, they would be idiots. And if they weren't successful much of the time, they would be incompetent boobs. (thanks logger I'm bringing that word back, me and you buddy) This is because the design of society and the rules we make are imperfect. What you have to argue is that the drugs don't actually do what they say, and the rules that the lobbyists want changed don't actually benefit society. As we all know (I guess it's my opinion I hope you agree with) the intersection of psychology and economics is the most painful topic, the most cognitively taxing, the most open to interpretation. See Richard Thaler's work. Now, all I am saying is that certain people prefer to take the easy way out and say it's all poisoned so therefore all irrelevant. This is because of our tendency to prefer a conspiracy theory to no good theory at all, and to suspect a complex theory over a simple one. While the bias may exist, I am very skeptical about how much it does dictate what the policy positions are, while others are content to believe it dictates everything.
 
Last edited:
Weird how people keep saying the system is rigged.

Last I checked, Clinton has 58.6% of the votes cast and 58% of the pledged delegates. Say what you will about the Democratic Party, at least they are living up to their name.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Explain Obama.
Click to expand...


If the megacorps owned everyone and everything, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sanders is proof that there are still a few outliers who don't depend on the mainstream political machine. The difference is people voted for Obama in large part for reasons other than policy, reasons of image. He was an excellent propagandist, much better than Sanders is. The other big difference is he didn't have the sheer fearmongering potential in the race that Trump provides; which has enabled Clinton to tap into that underlying cynicism in American politics and use it to edge out another truly progressive candidate. Had a Trump existed at that time, I think we would have seen many of the same arguments that are being used now, and a much stronger support for Clinton. The people clearly have a great deal of power still, but are very easily manipulated by appealing to fear into supporting politicians and legislation that are ultimately against their own interests. Something that Sanders has refused to do, leaving that to Clinton and her supporters, who are using that fear effectively. (On the GOP side, Kasich has also largely stepped away from that fearmongering in his campaign, and has suffered accordingly.)

That said, Obama's record speaks for itself. Pushing for the TPP, the ACA benefiting insurance companies more than the American public, the automobile industry bailout, many "protections" that were badly neutered and ultimately more feel-good than effective. Then there was the horrible treatment of whistleblowers under his regime, and continuing support for invasion of privacy by the government, and ongoing drone strikes in the Middle East.

Some good progressive accomplishments, some ambiguous, some outright bad. A mixed bag. And for all the progressive stuff, there was a huge uphill battle against the pro-corporate forces dominating Congress, so even though he was more progressive, his hands were tied in many ways. A situation that the people have a chance to change in this election, with so many seats up for re-election, as long as they don't give in to the fearmongering from both the establishment left, and the right. Unfortunately, fear and cynicism appear to be poised to rule the day, and those who can most effectively take advantage of them to sway the majority to their side. Look at Clinton's latest campaigning, she has moved away from targeting Sanders, and is focusing on Trump, making fear of him the primary motivator for her campaign.

Sanders still has a good shot at pulling off an upset; but I'm not putting money on it. The fearmongering is just too strong now.
 
Joey McGee said:
And if they weren't successful much of the time, they would be incompetent boobs. (thanks logger I'm bringing that word back, me and you buddy)
Click to expand...


Nothing substantial to contribute here, I just want to say that I'd recommend including H.L. Menken's "booboisie", because it sounds even cooler.
 
d4m10n said:
Weird how people keep saying the system is rigged.

Last I checked, Clinton has 58.6% of the votes cast and 58% of the pledged delegates. Say what you will about the Democratic Party, at least they are living up to their name.
Click to expand...

That's because evil corporations are telling those people how to vote and they just don't realize it. #feelthebern
 
Argumemnon said:
Funny, since they are the ones gaming the system.
Click to expand...
Illustrative, because this is exactly the kind of easy answer I'm criticizing. For certain, some of them are "gaming the system" but it can't possibly be all of them, and to quantify how many of them are, you'd have to do a lot of complex math and reasoning! Some of them are truly just doing what any of us would do, saying "Hey, if the rules were slightly different, it would be better for all of us" the fact that some of them are doing this cynically isn't a lynchpin you can use to disparage every lobbyist in Washington.
 
Joey McGee said:
While the bias may exist, I am very skeptical about how much it does dictate what the policy positions are, while others are content to believe it dictates everything.
Click to expand...


That's the key there. It's about influence, not outright control. Humans as a group are very easy to influence, but very difficult to control. Biases can be encouraged, discouraged, or overall manipulated, and everyone has biases, particularly those who claim they don't.

Money tends to win. Not always, but often enough and strongly enough; and the trend is always for the powerful to gain more power unless kept strongly in check.
 
luchog said:
IThat said, Obama's record speaks for itself. Pushing for the TPP, the ACA benefiting insurance companies more than the American public, the automobile industry bailout, many "protections" that were badly neutered and ultimately more feel-good than effective. Then there was the horrible treatment of whistleblowers under his regime, and continuing support for invasion of privacy by the government, and ongoing drone strikes in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
He actually believe that these things benefit the American public, you'll have to prove that they don't, which is harder.

Look at Clinton's latest campaigning, she has moved away from targeting Sanders, and is focusing on Trump, making fear of him the primary motivator for her campaign.
Click to expand...
She knows as well as anyone reading this that Sanders has zero chance at the nomination, and focusing on Trump and getting the maximum margin will be good for the party. A rational move. We all know she will win. The larger amount, the better the chances at hurting the Republicans in the congressional elections, by discrediting those who endorsed him.
 
Joey McGee said:
Illustrative, because this is exactly the kind of easy answer I'm criticizing. For certain, some of them are "gaming the system" but it can't possibly be all of them, and to quantify how many of them are, you'd have to do a lot of complex math and reasoning! Some of them are truly just doing what any of us would do, saying "Hey, if the rules were slightly different, it would be better for all of us" the fact that some of them are doing this cynically isn't a lynchpin you can use to disparage every lobbyist in Washington.
Click to expand...

Well, it's pretty obvious that people are going to bias what they think is "good for everyone" towards what is good for themselves in the short term, whether there's actually anything nefarious going on or not. I don't know if there's an answer to it though -- experts on money are always going to be people that have money. As a general rule, I'd say that politicians should turn towards academia rather than business interests (and their lobbyists) for economic viewpoints, but I'm not sure that actually fixes everything.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
That's the key there. It's about influence, not outright control. Humans as a group are very easy to influence, but very difficult to control. Biases can be encouraged, discouraged, or overall manipulated, and everyone has biases, particularly those who claim they don't.

Money tends to win. Not always, but often enough and strongly enough; and the trend is always for the powerful to gain more power unless kept strongly in check.
Click to expand...
You have to admit that simply discrediting anyone who "takes money" or is "influenced by lobbyists" is the strongest weapon in this desired fight. If you can get people to believe that this is a rational belief. But it's not, it's far more complicated than that, and with the average person who has about 10 minutes a day to think seriously about politics, are they doing this serious political science in their heads? No. So it's a cynical ploy as bad as any lobbying campaign!
 
Manopolus said:
Well, it's pretty obvious that people are going to bias what they think is "good for everyone" towards what is good for themselves, whether there's actually anything nefarious going on or not. I don't know if there's an answer to it though -- experts on money are always going to be people that have money. As a general rule, I'd say that politicians should turn towards academia rather than business interests for economic viewpoints, but I'm not sure that fixes much.
Click to expand...
Perfect! When you admit bias exists you have to admit it goes both ways, and both sides use the fact of human bias to argue for their side... without actually resorting to evidence! And all you're saying is that there is a good excuse as to why this doesn't matter! Perfect! I'd like to see the math, the hard economic arguments... I'd like to see what whistleblowing Obama put the kibosh on... please? I care about reality.
 
Joey McGee said:
Perfect! When you admit bias exists you have to admit it goes both ways, and both sides use the fact of human bias to argue for their side... without actually resorting to evidence! And all you're saying is that there is a good excuse as to why this doesn't matter! Perfect! I'd like to see the math, the hard economic arguments... I'd like to see what whistleblowing Obama put the kibosh on... please? I care about reality.
Click to expand...

Evidence can be quite selective, as we all know. Sometimes even unintentionally, considering how much information is available nowadays and the compartmental nature of it.

As for the "Obama" part, you may consider me to not be a part of that discussion. I haven't criticized Obama for anything related to this. Sure, I support Bernie for various reasons. What I haven't done is suggest that the current administration is corrupt in any way that I am aware of. I do think that at least considering the idea of appointing academics rather than former (and likely future) Goldman Sachs employees might be a good idea, but that's about it.

You'll have to forgive me for jumping into this part of the conversation without tracking it back to its source. I really don't know what you're talking about in half your post.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Evidence can be quite selective, as we all know. Sometimes even unintentionally, considering how much information is available nowadays and the compartmental nature of it.
Click to expand...
The most meaningless statement I have read on this forum in a long time... science is hard, yes. Political science, even harder. But get off of your ass and put something out there or you might as well sit at home and read the newspaper.

I do think that at least considering the idea of appointing academics rather than former (and likely future) Goldman Sachs employees might be a good idea, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's one thing we liberals can agree on, Obama, the anti-academia candidate... :rolleyes: Factually wrong in so many ways...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom