Gallup: "Dishonest" and "Socialist" Lead U.S. Reactions to Dems

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Feb 24, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    This is so unfair! Hillary tries to be honest, and Bernie wants everybody to be able to lay about and not have to work for a living, just like he did for 40 years:

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have multifaceted images among the American public. But the most common responses Americans give when asked to say what comes to mind when they think of each are "dishonest" and "dislike her" for Clinton, and "socialist" and "old" for Sanders. On the positive side, a fair number of Americans view Clinton as capable and experienced, and Sanders as a fresh face and honest.
    More people dislike Hill than like her too, and an equal percentage think she's qualified to be president and should be in jail:
    [​IMG]
    Bernie's problem is that people see him as being old, but an equal percentage thinks he's honest and crazy:
    [​IMG]

    No wonder the Democrats have such a huge Enthusiasm Gap this cycle! Read the whole article, it's a pip!
     
  2. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #2
    It's a sad state of affairs on the other when we see no candidate that will be able to beat either of them.
     
  3. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #3
    Doubtful. Democrat numbers at the polls have thus far been far below what they were in 2008. On the flip side, Republicans have been breaking records for voter turnout.

    I don't see people suddenly deciding they trust or like the untrustworthy and unlikable Hillary.
     
  4. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #4
    Lets give her some credit, she "tries" to be honest.
     
  5. bent christian Suspended

    bent christian

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    #5
    Many, many people never vote in primary elections.

    Republicans LOVE Trump. I get that. He will probably be the nominee. Trump is totally unelectable, nationally.
     
  6. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    true unlike trump who flaunts his dishonesty like a page of honor. even when called out he won't admit it.
     
  7. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    Yawn. The Dishonest etc group + the Criminal etc group represent the Crazification factor in the general population. Watch for the number 27% (+/- MOE, in this case 28%) in polling results and you'll see it quite frequently. A little over a quarter of the population is certifiably stupid/crazy.

    Crazification factor:

    A neologism coined by blogger John Rogers to refer to the portion of the electorate comprising the nuttiest of the wingnuts and the bat**** crazy... Rogers was writing of the 2004 Senate election in Illinois:

    "Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Bat**** crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behavior. I think you have to assume a 27% crazification factor in any population."​
     
  8. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    Dems: 2 old, withered whites. One being reviewed by the FBI and with more baggage than a luggage store and who's reinvented herself more than Madonna; the latest was how to be like a regular person and have a personality; the other a rabid commie socialist looking to annihilate business and soak taxpayers for any and all social programs that ensure an infantilized population over low information and "gimme mine!" voters.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    It's funny when righties get all worked up over "socialism".

    God forbid the US try to do anything to improve our country. Nope. Let's just go around pretending we're still the "greatest country in the world" because we were 50 years ago. Keep the heads in the sand.

    But I get it. "Socialism" and welfare are ok when it's giving tax breaks or propping up big corporations.

    It's only bad when you want to use the people's tax dollars for things that would benefit the people and not just a few rich Wall Street folks.
     
  10. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #10
    Socialism really worked for oil-rich Venezuela. Not.
     
  11. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #11
    Good thing nobody is advocating for Venezuela-style socialism.
     
  12. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #12
    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    Growth (Average Annual Percent)
    [​IMG]

    Inflation: Pre-Chávez vs. Chávez Years
    [​IMG]


    Unemployment Rate: Before and After Oil Strike
    [​IMG]
    In 1999, when Chávez took office, unemployment was 14.5 percent; for 2011 it was 7.8 percent.


    Poverty and Extreme Poverty Rate
    [​IMG]


    Gini Coefficient, 2001-2003 - Latin America
    [​IMG]
    The Gini coefficient, measuring income inequality, fell from 0.5 to 0.397, the lowest Gini coefficient in the region.


    Graduates from Higher Education
    [​IMG]


    Child Malnutrition- Age 5 and Under
    [​IMG]

    (Source: Venezuelan Economic and Social Performance Under Hugo Chávez, in Graphs, Center for Economic and Policy Research)
     
  13. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #13
    Hey kids! Let's improve our country by making it Socialist. Just like Venezuela! YAYYYYYY!
    --- Post Merged, Feb 24, 2016 ---
    What style socialism would you like to have, given that you didn't specify any particular flavor until the failed Venezuelan version was mentioned.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 24, 2016 ---
    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    Venezuela president raises fuel price by 6,000% and devalues bolivar to tackle crisis
    Venezuela's a member of OPEC, by the way. As usual, Socialism only succeeds in making everybody miserable.

     
  14. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #14
    Right. Because a heavily oil-dependent economy rocked by crashing world oil prices is totally socialism's fault. :rolleyes:
     
  15. zioxide, Feb 24, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2016

    zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    None of them honestly. I'm not in favor of traditional socialism. The means of production should not be controlled by the government. Capitalism with enough regulation to make it somewhat fair is the balance we need to strike.

    I am in favor of a social democracy where the government provides critical public services. The US already has many aspects of this, but it wouldn't hurt to expand it in some areas because in the long run it would save us tons of money and improve our economy and the lives of many of our citizens. This country's best asset is our people and we are only hurting ourselves if we don't properly invest in them.

    Canada and some of the Northern European countries do this quite well.

    The US did this after the Great Depression and it helped us become the greatest country in the world. But, since the 1970s, we've trended away from this type of government towards more unregulated capitalism in many areas, which has been a major factor in America's decline.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 24, 2016 ---
    But hey, apparently investing in things like fixing our crumbling roads, bridges, ports, power grid, water and sewage systems, etc is just serving to "infantilize the population."

    Who the **** needs roads or bridges anyways?
     
  16. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #16
    Why don't you look some of that stuff up before opining? Venezuela's problems predate the recent oil price drop:

    The crude oil production of the country has declined significantly since 1999. Venezuela is currently producing 2.6 million barrels per day compared to a crude oil production of 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000.

    In a recent publication of the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation, Venezuela ranks at 176, third to last, just below Zimbabwe and above Cuba and North Korea. Economic freedom in Venezuela has sharply dropped after two decades of socialism.​
    --- Post Merged, Feb 24, 2016 ---
    So there's no form of socialism that you think works other than the imaginary one in your brain.

    I'm done.
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    Why would anyone want pure socialism where there's no private enterprise?

    Its not my fault you and many Americans can't grasp the difference between socialism and a social democracy.

    Let's break it down:

    "Socialism" is when all means of production and enterprise is owned by the state.

    "Social democracy" is a capitalist system that has parts regulated by the government.

    The US already is a social democracy.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #18
    By your definition, Communist China is the ideal social democracy (did you know they have the most billionaires on the planet?).

    No thanks.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Isn't China socialist and the world's most successful economy?
     
  20. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #20
    Uh, no.

    China is a one-party state that has zero aspects of democracy. China is socialist like Venezuela. It's not a social democracy at all.

    Try again.
     
  21. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    They've been having a meltdown lately, so I wouldn't say they're the most successful.

    The story is similar if less marked in continental Europe and Japan. Demand has only been sustained across all these countries since the mid-1980s because of the relentless willingness of banks to pump credit into the hands of consumers at rates much faster than the rate of economic growth to compensate for squeezed wages. It was a trend only interrupted by the credit crunch and which has now resumed with a vengeance. The result is a mountain of mortgage and personal debt but with ever-lower pay packets to service it, creating a banking system that is fundamentally precarious. The country that has taken this further than any other is China. The Chinese economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. Tens of trillions of dollars are owed to essentially bankrupt banks – and worse, bankrupt near-banks that operate in the murky shadowlands of a deeply dysfunctional mix of Leninism and rapacious capitalism. The Chinese Communist party has bought itself temporary legitimacy by its shameless willingness to direct state-owned banks to lend to consumers and businesses with little attention to their creditworthiness. Thus it has lifted growth and created millions of jobs.

    It is an edifice waiting to implode. Chinese business habitually bribes Communist officials to put pressure on their bankers to forgive loans or commute interest; most loans only receive interest payments haphazardly or not at all. If the losses were crystallised, the banking system would be bust overnight. On top, huge loans have been made to China’s vast oil, gas and chemical industries on the basis of oil being above $60 a barrel, so more losses are in prospect.​
    --- Post Merged, Feb 24, 2016 ---
    Then why didn't you include "aspects of democracy" in your definitions?
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    By meltdown you mean only 5% growth?
     
  23. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
    Pay no attention to the material I posted.
     
  24. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #24
    The Heritage Foundation's Index is based on ideology, not facts. Meanwhile, the scoreboard cited @12 above shows Heritage's beloved pre-Chavez "freedom" pretty much sucks for actual performance.
     
  25. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #25
    Let's just stop there while you pull some facts out of your hat to support that laughable claim.
     

Share This Page