In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 30 2015 02:43 Simberto wrote: What surprises me is that this means that 32% of americans have a problem with pre-marital sex, and 39% with children out of wedlock. (Ignoring the "don't answer" people)
I'd love to see statistics about that for germany, because these number sound so much higher than anything i would expect from my daily experience. I am pretty sure that noone here cares about pre-marital sex at all, and i don't think the number for children is much higher (Though it could be with a lot of the people who expect a marriage to lead to more stability for the child) The only person that i know where i can even imagine her mentioning this is my grandmother, and that is just because she loves to gossip about anyone and anything.
The source pegs unmarried sex at 29% "morally wrong" and baby outside of marriage at 35%. Not 32% and 39% if you ignore volunteered 'depends,' 'not moral issue,' and 'no opinion.'
On May 30 2015 02:43 Simberto wrote: What surprises me is that this means that 32% of americans have a problem with pre-marital sex, and 39% with children out of wedlock. (Ignoring the "don't answer" people)
I'd love to see statistics about that for germany, because these number sound so much higher than anything i would expect from my daily experience. I am pretty sure that noone here cares about pre-marital sex at all, and i don't think the number for children is much higher (Though it could be with a lot of the people who expect a marriage to lead to more stability for the child) The only person that i know where i can even imagine her mentioning this is my grandmother, and that is just because she loves to gossip about anyone and anything.
To me, the surprising part is that the gap is not much larger. Premarital sex is widespread and not really a problem, whereas out of wedlock children are much rarer, and pose a significant social problem.
Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about --
So when you talk about what is and is not really a problem, already the poll is screening out legal/societal issues (i.e. not a problem that there should be a law against). The poll is asking about moral rights (Well, Right+Neutral=Acceptable?) and wrongs, regardless of social impact.
Ah. I suppose it was me thinking generally along the lines of prudence. The average premarital sex is not harmful (obviously some can be) whereas the average out of wedlock child is more likely to have a single parent household (with obvious exceptions as well). Ib guess more formulation was closer to "is this generally a bad idea."
Not bad. I wonder what makes Sanders so much more popular than Kucinich was back in '08? Is it really that the country is moving left? or is the thought of another Clinton regime too much to stomach? :D
Edit: Although I don't think the article is very fair considering how many more candidates there are currently entering the GOP side.
On May 30 2015 04:56 screamingpalm wrote: Not bad. I wonder what makes Sanders so much more popular than Kucinich was back in '08? Is it really that the country is moving left? or is the thought of another Clinton regime too much to stomach? :D
Edit: Although I don't think the article is very fair considering how many more candidates there are currently entering the GOP side.
That's a good point... splitting the Democratic candidates into ~2 as opposed to ~10+ Republican candidates means that it's not particularly surprising that BS has a more sizable portion. I do think that we're moving more leftward too.
Bernie Sanders Has More Support Than Every 2016 Republican Candidate In New Poll
According to the latest polling, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign has more support than the campaign of media favorites Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and every other Republican candidate.
The latest Quinnipiac Poll revealed that five Republicans are tied at the top of the Republican field. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee each were at 10%.
Do you know who is more popular than even the most popular 2016 Republicans? Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the same poll, Sanders was supported by 15% of Democrats for their party’s nomination. Sen. Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 57%-15%, but his fifteen percent made him the second most popular presidential candidate in the country.
The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans. Why does the media treat Sen. Sanders like he is token opposition to former Sec. of State Clinton instead of as the legitimately popular stand alone figure that he is?
The answer to this question is located in the media’s bias. The corporate press has convinced itself that the America is a conservative country. They believe that liberal views are not “in the mainstream.” However, recent polling shows that the country is moving left.
Politicians like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee are more out of the mainstream than Bernie Sanders. The media is perpetuating the myth of a horse race election between Democrats and Republicans when the facts are that the Democratic Party has the two most popular candidates. One of those candidates is extraordinarily popular (Hillary Clinton) while the other is more in touch with the sentiment among average Americans (Bernie Sanders) than any candidate on the Republican side.
Bernie Sanders is legitimately popular. The prism that the media is trying to force this election into doesn’t fit. Sen. Sanders has a larger base of support than any Republican hopeful, which is why it is time for the media to stop pumping up GOP pretenders and face the reality that Bernie Sanders is legit.
For the past few elections, I've seen most primaries and even the final presidential elections as finding the lesser of two (or more) evils... but Bernie Sanders is someone who I think would legitimately make a very good president. A vote for him wouldn't feel like "settling", and I think his record and reputation and manners are very legitimate and he wouldn't be bought out (like every other candidate is- including Hillary).
Bernie is going to be sneaky. Hillary's support has topped out, and the right is going to spend the whole time beating on Hillary.
Bernie Sanders Has More Support Than Every 2016 Republican Candidate In New Poll
According to the latest polling, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign has more support than the campaign of media favorites Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and every other Republican candidate.
The latest Quinnipiac Poll revealed that five Republicans are tied at the top of the Republican field. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee each were at 10%.
Do you know who is more popular than even the most popular 2016 Republicans? Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the same poll, Sanders was supported by 15% of Democrats for their party’s nomination. Sen. Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 57%-15%, but his fifteen percent made him the second most popular presidential candidate in the country.
The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans. Why does the media treat Sen. Sanders like he is token opposition to former Sec. of State Clinton instead of as the legitimately popular stand alone figure that he is?
The answer to this question is located in the media’s bias. The corporate press has convinced itself that the America is a conservative country. They believe that liberal views are not “in the mainstream.” However, recent polling shows that the country is moving left.
Politicians like Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee are more out of the mainstream than Bernie Sanders. The media is perpetuating the myth of a horse race election between Democrats and Republicans when the facts are that the Democratic Party has the two most popular candidates. One of those candidates is extraordinarily popular (Hillary Clinton) while the other is more in touch with the sentiment among average Americans (Bernie Sanders) than any candidate on the Republican side.
Bernie Sanders is legitimately popular. The prism that the media is trying to force this election into doesn’t fit. Sen. Sanders has a larger base of support than any Republican hopeful, which is why it is time for the media to stop pumping up GOP pretenders and face the reality that Bernie Sanders is legit.
For the past few elections, I've seen most primaries and even the final presidential elections as finding the lesser of two (or more) evils... but Bernie Sanders is someone who I think would legitimately make a very good president. A vote for him wouldn't feel like "settling", and I think his record and reputation and manners are very legitimate and he wouldn't be bought out (like every other candidate is- including Hillary).
Bernie is going to be sneaky. Hillary's support has topped out, and the right is going to spend the whole time beating on Hillary.
But there is Rand Paul the Wild Card
Paul is going to have a problem rallying enough support for the primary if Fox is going full on ignore on him.
On May 30 2015 02:43 Simberto wrote: What surprises me is that this means that 32% of americans have a problem with pre-marital sex, and 39% with children out of wedlock. (Ignoring the "don't answer" people)
I'd love to see statistics about that for germany, because these number sound so much higher than anything i would expect from my daily experience. I am pretty sure that noone here cares about pre-marital sex at all, and i don't think the number for children is much higher (Though it could be with a lot of the people who expect a marriage to lead to more stability for the child) The only person that i know where i can even imagine her mentioning this is my grandmother, and that is just because she loves to gossip about anyone and anything.
The source pegs unmarried sex at 29% "morally wrong" and baby outside of marriage at 35%. Not 32% and 39% if you ignore volunteered 'depends,' 'not moral issue,' and 'no opinion.'
On May 30 2015 03:19 cLutZ wrote:
On May 30 2015 02:43 Simberto wrote: What surprises me is that this means that 32% of americans have a problem with pre-marital sex, and 39% with children out of wedlock. (Ignoring the "don't answer" people)
I'd love to see statistics about that for germany, because these number sound so much higher than anything i would expect from my daily experience. I am pretty sure that noone here cares about pre-marital sex at all, and i don't think the number for children is much higher (Though it could be with a lot of the people who expect a marriage to lead to more stability for the child) The only person that i know where i can even imagine her mentioning this is my grandmother, and that is just because she loves to gossip about anyone and anything.
To me, the surprising part is that the gap is not much larger. Premarital sex is widespread and not really a problem, whereas out of wedlock children are much rarer, and pose a significant social problem.
The poll asked a very specific question.
Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about --
So when you talk about what is and is not really a problem, already the poll is screening out legal/societal issues (i.e. not a problem that there should be a law against). The poll is asking about moral rights (Well, Right+Neutral=Acceptable?) and wrongs, regardless of social impact.
Ah. I suppose it was me thinking generally along the lines of prudence. The average premarital sex is not harmful (obviously some can be) whereas the average out of wedlock child is more likely to have a single parent household (with obvious exceptions as well). Ib guess more formulation was closer to "is this generally a bad idea."
"Is this generally a bad idea" with a distinctive religious twist. I would think for the nonreligious and particularly moral relativists, the question reduces to what you just said.
Mainstream Christian denominations have clear scriptural guidance on moral culpability for sin, of which fornication is one. Secondly, the responsibility is extended not only to those that commit the sins, but also those that approve of the practice. So even if biblical adherents might think a secular society isn't worse off, generally, for unmarried sex, they have to morally discern the choices from this particular poll question. This might be a generally neutral idea/issue for the secular society at large, but a morally clear one for the individual's soul (again, from a perspective of universal moral absolutists).
I do really like Gallup's methodology and how frequently they take polls on social issues, including religious ones. Sometimes Pew makes mistakes like coding responses for non-denominational as religiously unaffiliated.
I don't think people actually know whether Sanders has a chance to win the nomination. Although his current name recognition and percent support among Democratic voters are low in absolute terms, those quantities are changing rapidly in time relative to themselves. (In other words, if I run for president, and my percent support changes from 1% to 2% to 4% to 8% in 3 weeks, Clinton would be worried even though 8% is small, unless the election is very soon or unless I begin to plateau.)
Where will percent support top out? You could make an estimate based on current percent support and current name recognition, then extrapolate to 100% name recognition. From the chart in this URL, + Show Spoiler +
says 63% to 14%, which is kinder to Sanders. Both pages are from the last 3 days.
I can't find Sanders' name recognition among Democratic voters in a quick search. If Sanders' recognition is at 100% right now, I'd wager that Clinton will win the primary. If Sanders' recognition is ~7-8% right now (going by the numbers in the first link), then I'd wager that Sanders would win, because that would imply that everyone who knows about them both is voting Sanders, and we can assume that eventually everyone will know about them both (or can we?). (I assume Clinton is already at 100%.) So what's the actual number? This is quantifiable, I just can't find the info.
Obviously extrapolating to 100% name recognition is a naive approach, but I think it would at least be indicative of whether he stands a chance.
From a completely peripheral standpoint, do you think Bernie Sanders's appearance well help/ hurt him in the election? At first glance he appears to be an unkempt, old, even grumpy-looking, man. He certainly doesn't have youth or aesthetics on his side. Do you think a significant percentage of voters might not take him seriously due to superficial peripherals (completely ignoring his platforms)? After all, the halo effect is a legitimate cognitive bias...
He looks like the quintessential grumpy old neighbor waving his cane at the youngsters next door, yelling "Get off my grass!"
On May 30 2015 06:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From a completely peripheral standpoint, do you think Bernie Sanders's appearance well help/ hurt him in the election? At first glance he appears to be an unkempt, old, even grumpy-looking, man. He certainly doesn't have youth or aesthetics on his side. Do you think a significant percentage of voters might not take him seriously due to superficial peripherals (completely ignoring his platforms)? After all, the halo effect is a legitimate cognitive bias...
He looks like the quintessential grumpy old neighbor waving his cane at the youngsters next door, yelling "Get off my grass!"
I feel he looks like an everyman talking about making things better for the people, it doesn't hurt him much, if anything it adds to his apparent sincerity in my opinion.
On May 30 2015 05:25 Introvert wrote: I see the Sanders delusion is already under way. Oh well, maybe the Bernie spam will at least be amusing.
a "good guy" or an honest politician, when they have no idea. Just because he admits to being a socialist from VT, so wh Just curious which republicans you think he is comparable to as far as chances to win?
I've said multiple times that I never rule anyone out (though it's a long shot). I root for many of the Republicans that have small chances. That being said, I'm not going to talk about Republicans, that's just a diversion.
But I was also commenting on all this praise for Sanders. people who didn't know who he was 2 years ago are now ardent supporters and think he's great? I need more evidence, see how he performs, the scale of the lies and deception he will employ to win.
I'm just amused by how all of a sudden we have daily articles everywhere about him and how he can win! At least the Republican field is more wide open, Sanders has a worse chance at the nomination than any major Republican (by that I mean the Republicans are all around 10% or less), even if he has 15% support (while Hillary is at what, 50%+).
On May 30 2015 06:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From a completely peripheral standpoint, do you think Bernie Sanders's appearance well help/ hurt him in the election? At first glance he appears to be an unkempt, old, even grumpy-looking, man. He certainly doesn't have youth or aesthetics on his side. Do you think a significant percentage of voters might not take him seriously due to superficial peripherals (completely ignoring his platforms)? After all, the halo effect is a legitimate cognitive bias...
He looks like the quintessential grumpy old neighbor waving his cane at the youngsters next door, yelling "Get off my grass!"
I think it works to his benefit. Republicans used up all their credibility convincing us Obama was a radical leftist, gun-stealing foreign, terrorist, Muslim, Socialist, Emperor, etc.. Despite a lot of it being hot air, that was pretty much the ceiling of getting people to buy that stuff. It's going to be hard to make people scared of Bernie. (He has some of the most sensible positions for a Dem on guns).
Whether people want to admit it or not, Obama being black helped a lot of the negative stuff stick with little or no supporting evidence. Bernie just doesn't have that going for him. The latest hint on attacks against Bernie is they are going to make him look like a crazy hippy. That might work, but I'm not sure 'crazy hippy' is as dirty of an idea as it was through the late 90's early 2000's or that it will stick to an old man who seems like one of the most sane people running. EDIT: Also his age means he might be able to snipe off some Fox Viewers who relate to 'the old guy running'.
What's going to kick Republicans ass is that the only thing they agree on across the top of the field is that Hillary sucks. Something the people who are going to support Bernie aren't really going to disagree with, other than maybe that she still sucks less than the Republican alternatives.
Republicans are yet to unleash the strategy that goes beyond lowering turnout and raising Hillary's negatives. (Rand Paul would be the exception to this).
EPT
